I have to agree. Right now the piracy problem isn't anywhere near the ports that these ships stop at. They're happening in relatively open seas off of the cost of Somalia. The ships are transitioning through this aresa.
Personally, my solution would be to stop having ports be so uptight about 'anti-piate' weaponry, even if it's lethal. . Basically, nothing larger than a.50 caliber automatic weapon. A few.50BMG guns aren't a serious threat to a port with it's actual naval vessels with big guns, but they'll stop pirates all day long.
This laser device is one more means to stop pirates, but it's also yet another device that's more or less useful only if the pirates are spotted before tehy can board. Pirates act a lot like predators - they'll often back off the moment their target starts countermeasures, instead simply looking for an easier target.
Let's drop all insurance support for abusers of prescription meds, like Rush Limbaugh, while we're at it.
There's a big difference between allowing Rush to buy his own insurance and denying public health care to those who would abuse it. For that matter Rush is likely one of the few people who don't need insurance because he's capable of personally paying for pretty much any illness.
Personally, I'd love it if somebody could figure out how to encourage healthy lifestyle changes.
But denying somebody health coverage due to any reason can get slippery slope real fast - like what was posted, first you deny benefits to those that deliberately use dangerous drugs, next you deny them to smokers or fat people, next thing you know you're being denied for eating too much red meat.
Of course, our health industry in the USA is FUBAR anyways, so maybe expanding the amount of uninsured 10X might actually encourage fixing the system.
absurd ways US copyright, licensing, and contract law has been twisted apply to the rest of the world.
I'd like to point out that a number of the absurdities in US Copyright laws are because of treaties and contorting OUR copyright laws to match those of the rest of the world(IE Europe). Basically, the US used to be a touch stricter, but had shorter copyrights. Europe was more lax in useage, but had longer protection periods.
Bingo. That's what our thin clients are for - fore particularly sensitive data, at which point spending another $200 per desk isn't a big deal, because it's a security expense, not a support expense.
To expand on our expenses - $300 for a standard desktop; this includes the OS, while other standard apps are covered by site licensing.
For the thin client, you don't get a break from the site licenses, but it's: $250 for the client $100 for the client license ~$1k for the server for each 10-30 clients ~$1k for the server software(separate from the client licenses).
While you can theoretically utilize CPU more efficiently with a server, server CPUs are more expensive than desktop ones and not actually that much more powerful, and virtual machines for the individual clients imposes a varying amount of overhead. So if you want the same performance in your virtual environment you can't have that many clients per server. On the desktops I don't think you're actually saving that much because of the amount of integration - once you have a chipset capable of connecting to the network, displaying a GUI, and handling various other devices, you're 90% of the way to a full computer, if a basic one.
Honestly, I think that a form of cloud/distributed computing might actually make more sense from an economic perspective - some method to eliminate central servers by making the desktops do double duty.
I think that what you'd need to make thin clients make sense would be some sort of computing chip that doesn't scale down - IE 10X the expense, 100X the parallel computing power, or even 100X the expense, 10000X the computing.
In my experience, it's MORE physical assets - you go from a computer/monitor/K&M to thinclient/monitor/K&M AND a server for every 10-100 users.
hardware failures are treated as 'maintenance window' scenarios, or a quick plop onto someone's desk.
Already are - it's just the computer has the 'standard image'
* Software infrastructure upgrades are fast: instead of 100, 500, etc. targets to upgrade, you've got 10, 50.
Our updates are automatically pushed by SMS and other software. It's not actually that noticable.
You are no longer bound so much to the 'hardware upgrade cycle'.
We've already gone to a 5 year refresh cycle. How much more would thin clients save us?
Don't get me wrong; I actually like the tech. I just don't think it's quite there yet.
If I had my way we WOULD be using linux thinclients and desktops for 99% of users. But I don't have my way, so I gotta deal.
On thin clients - I especially liked the part where I could 'lock' my session, walk to another thin client, 'log in', and have my session pop up on the new machine. I liked that my stuff was backed up more, that I really wouldn't have to worry about patches.
I didn't like the number of autostart applications the administrators put in there; Do I really need a word document, a chat client, and a couple other custom applications(that I hardly use) starting up whenever I log in? This is a problem even for a physical machine; but at least with it I have a better chance of getting my way.
Having used some actual thin clients, it's not bad, though I wouldn't want to game on it.
I think the core point would be that because of the way licensing works - you have to buy the client, pay for a license for the client, a license for all software used on the client(if you're going to be legal), it ends up actually being more expensive than a bottom line, but still capable full PC.
The HD adds, what, $20-40? The licenses for our thin clients was more like $100.
NOT the GP, but the 30% caught my attention, so I'll provide a source - False Rape Reporting
Dr. Kanin found 41% of accustations were found to be 'false'. Two studies - one by the FBI and one by Britain, using 'similar methodology' found 8%, but 'does not include accusers who drop out of hte justice process'.
Wiki lists 45%, 41%, 8%, 8%. Average of 25.5% across 4 quoted figures.
Depending on how you define a 'rape accusation', 30% is a reasonable figure, I think. One critical difference would be whether your standard requires reporting to the police, for example.
I had a friend who was accused of rape by a girl - the police hardly even bothered to take a report from her, because they'd lost count of how many times she's tried it. Very much a case of 'crying wolf'. Think 'crazy stalker chick'. It was figured out she was lying within minutes in this case - he had an airtight alibi for when she said it occured.
She's the type who puts additional stress on women who have really been assaulted, because additional police resources are taken up by her false accusations and it makes the cops doubt anybody who comes in.
While I fully support rapists going to prison; I think that woman needed to spend some time behind bars herself for false reporting. But that also makes me grimace- if you've made a false rape report, you're more likely to follow through and put an innocent man behind bars simply to protect yourself.
It's *complicated*, but we need to find a proper balance - I'm thinking if you make a false report, that's beyond obvious, or if it comes out that you maliciously falsified the charge and it resulted in the conviction of an innocent, you need to spend some time in prison. If you fess up BEFORE the trial; then we'll let you go(for that offense).
It's kinda like the military's drug policy - self identify and you'll face no charges. Wait until you're caught, charges.
You need the extra battery cars, obviously. You need somebody to decouple the locomotive & battery, another to drive the locomotive, a switch track to move the battery pack off the main line, then another switch track to move the charged battery car ONTO the track. Then the individual has to couple everything back up - I think there's at least 3 connections that would be needed - the electric for powering the locomotive, pneumatic for the braking system, your actual physical connection, etc...
Remember, diesel-electric motivation is pushing how efficient diesel engines can be in the first place, limiting any such gains.
Given the limitations of batteries, you're looking at needing a LOT more substations to do your swaps. I considered using train cars - but swapping cars is more complicated than what you might think.
I disagree - it takes a certain amount of power to keep the train going, and at that size they can get the diesel engines used to power it quite efficient. Plus, they tend to be kept moving nearly 24-7, limiting your opportunities to recharge. You could play with battery swaps, but then you're looking at moving at what would probably be a multi-million dollar battery pack with a winch, vs pouring in a few hundred/thousand dollars worth of diesel fuel.
A bunch better way to spend money is developing new battery tech and at looking at utilizing solar energy to power them. That, or get over the stigma against nuclear tech and utilize small personal reactors for energy...
Thing is, billions are already being spent on developing battery and solar tech. $30M is a drop in the bucket, but could possibly point to a way to make things like lubricating oil, aviation fuel, etc... from biological sources economically.
Unfortuantly, hydrochemicals still beat batteries like a red headed stepchild when it comes to energy density, and will for the forseeable future. So in applications where you NEED that density, demand isn't going away. Examples I can think of - airplanes, long haul trucks/trains*, backup power generators, etc..
*Just too expensive to run wires over that much territory
As for the AC about nuclear cars - neutrons aren't actually that big of a deal; a single sheet of metal is normally sufficient to stop them.
Except there is very little evidence of additional casualties among the wild life.
True. The only case I remember is certain birds who are actually nesting on/in the actual sarcophagus. They had approximately twice the mutation rate, but given that most of the bird species laid eggs of four and that the nestlings normally ended up pushing out weaker siblings anyways - it vanished into the 'noise'.
That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel.
Blatently false, and yet it shows up in every thread about nuclear matters.
Our inability to dispose of spent fuel is a political problem, not a technical one.
Options: 1. Reprocess - it's still 90% or so usable fuel, if repurified. - The remaining isotopes tend to stay radioactive for a lot less time; more like 300 years, not thousands. 2. Use in breeder/alternate reactors 3. Bury in salt mines 4. Dump at sea into subduction zone
There's more, including a technology under development to do neutron bombardment to force fission quicker and artificially accellerate decay.
Still, I oppose just doing #3/4 until #1 or 2 is done because, well, it's still usable, why would we WANT to throw it away? Why spend the effort to design a vault good for thousands of years when I figure we'd just end up digging it back up in a couple centuries to use it as fuel again anyways?
Don't forget that you can keep store a multi-decade amount of waste from a multi-gigawatt plant in what's essentially an extra deep pool.
There's a large difference between saying that Chernobyl caused/causes less damage to the 'ecosystem' than humans and saying that animal life is equal to human life.
Basically, Chernobyl ended up creating an unintended nature preserve. Much like some nuke test sites in the USA, the NASA exclusion zone around their launch sites, the DMZ between North and South Korea, etc...
Due to mild dangers that the animals don't really notice - with their higher breeding rates and shorter lifespans, additional casualties are lost in the noise. Especially once you realize that they're not being hunted by people, pushed out of habitat, or dealing with the chemical runoff and pollution from human habitation.
I hunt, and have no problems saying that the lack of humans around Chernobyl has done more to encourage an area richly populated by animal life than the radiation from the reactor has done to prevent it.
OTOH, it makes complete logical sense to say that the children of diplomats and our troops born while abroad are natural born citizens of the United States. It’d be a flat-out insult to them any other way. “Sorry, but since you’re serving your country abroad we’ll reward your dedication by making your child ineligible to ever run for President."
My point would be that neither is it logical to deny the child of a citizen citizenship even if the citizen happens to be out of country when she gives birth.
Since Obama's mother is a US Citizen, he's a US Citizen.
I'd echo SleazyRidr, but I have a more practical solution - they normally test 2 myths per episode, so save the nursing myths for an episode where the opposite myth is suitably explodey.
Maybe it's been long enough from 9/11 to go after the conspiracy theorists and test various 9/11 'theories'.
I don't even really care about the funding; my fire department got a fair bit of federal funding, but said funding mostly went to cover federal firefighting requirements. If they'd stayed out of it our equipment would have been a bit more 'hillbilly', but still functional for a fraction of the price.
As a member of the volunteer fire department, do people really expect me to let my own house burn down because of some principle?
That's the other thing - I might disagree with certain policies, but as long as I'm helping to pay for them I might as well take advantage of them to get SOME of my money back.
I think that Lord Kano is still more right though. It says 'natural born', being born a citizen is good enough for me. Whether it's in country or out of country to a US Citizen parent.
I personally think it's funny that for all the Birther's ranting, if you DQ'd Obama you'd logically have to DQ McCain.
That's assuming they manage to get the same concentration on the targeting.
Remember, attacking warships are going to be moving. Still, I'd imagine that a city might be about to come up with more than 500 soldiers, and they'll be a little more dedicated to practicing their aim than kids.
After that, though, you're back to the attackers wetting their boats down first, using their own shields as mirrors, and having multiple boats.
I wouldn't be surprised if it'd been used as a blinding/harrassing tactic though. Even getting the attacking boats to lose synchronization on their landing could make a big difference in the fight.
Don't forget the need for calm waters and the the sailors and soldiers in the attacking boats NOT tossing the occasional bucket of water on the burn point over the course of two hours.
If I was going to do the mirror thing, I think I'd concentrate more on blinding any navigators and hope they end up blundering into rocks, reefs, or other obstruction, possibly man-made. Even each other.
I find this to be very interesting, seeing as how I was initially thinking of a screwdriver equivalent to an impact wrench/drill - the ultrasonics acting to overcome static friction to make removing the screw easier.
There's obviously a market for him. There are some roles suited for his acting skills.
For some reason, some roles call for 'understated' emotional expression. Easily confused with 'face of wood'.;)
Clint Eastwood and John Wayne both did a good 'understated', but they both had faces weatherbeaten enough to make it more an 'I've experienced enough that I'm unimpressed with your problem'.
Mostly Civil, with a good dash of Minarchism*, a bit of conservatism, a moderate amound of Green, and a smidge of transhumanism. For a libertarian I can get downright socialistic when it comes to taking care of people, but I'm all about giving a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand-out'. IE I don't have welfare, I have workfare. Instead of extending unemployment, I get very generous with retraining programs(yes, I'll provide support while you're in class).
I'm pretty standard on the 'victimless crimes' aspect, and believe that any rules should be held to an effectiveness standard. Want to keep DUI illegal? Show some proof that it's more effective at saving lives and property from DUI accidents than other methods.
*While a pure Minarchist would still be nailing this guy - he managed to do all three things they say government courts should still handle. Personally, I think that the government still needs to be involved in a bit more. For example, I have no problems with going entirely towards private schools, but I believe that they still need a bit of government control/funding. It's in my and the state's interest to make sure education standards are reasonable(teaching evolution over creationism), and that the kids of even the poorest/most negligent parents still get a practical education.
Basically, I don't want to have to support people, but as long as we're not willing to let them starve, we might as well be efficient in our support. If an education program is more efficient than policing after the fact, why NOT do the education?
I disagree with most parts of anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, socialism, and geolibertarianism*.
*I'm going to have to look more into this one. How the heck do you set the rent rate? Can you not pay rent on land your house is on, and still exclude people from the house itself(it's a product of labor, after all)? What about land improvements?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. Right now the piracy problem isn't anywhere near the ports that these ships stop at. They're happening in relatively open seas off of the cost of Somalia. The ships are transitioning through this aresa.
Personally, my solution would be to stop having ports be so uptight about 'anti-piate' weaponry, even if it's lethal. . Basically, nothing larger than a .50 caliber automatic weapon. A few .50BMG guns aren't a serious threat to a port with it's actual naval vessels with big guns, but they'll stop pirates all day long.
This laser device is one more means to stop pirates, but it's also yet another device that's more or less useful only if the pirates are spotted before tehy can board. Pirates act a lot like predators - they'll often back off the moment their target starts countermeasures, instead simply looking for an easier target.
Let's drop all insurance support for abusers of prescription meds, like Rush Limbaugh, while we're at it.
There's a big difference between allowing Rush to buy his own insurance and denying public health care to those who would abuse it. For that matter Rush is likely one of the few people who don't need insurance because he's capable of personally paying for pretty much any illness.
Personally, I'd love it if somebody could figure out how to encourage healthy lifestyle changes.
But denying somebody health coverage due to any reason can get slippery slope real fast - like what was posted, first you deny benefits to those that deliberately use dangerous drugs, next you deny them to smokers or fat people, next thing you know you're being denied for eating too much red meat.
Of course, our health industry in the USA is FUBAR anyways, so maybe expanding the amount of uninsured 10X might actually encourage fixing the system.
absurd ways US copyright, licensing, and contract law has been twisted apply to the rest of the world.
I'd like to point out that a number of the absurdities in US Copyright laws are because of treaties and contorting OUR copyright laws to match those of the rest of the world(IE Europe). Basically, the US used to be a touch stricter, but had shorter copyrights. Europe was more lax in useage, but had longer protection periods.
Bingo. That's what our thin clients are for - fore particularly sensitive data, at which point spending another $200 per desk isn't a big deal, because it's a security expense, not a support expense.
To expand on our expenses -
$300 for a standard desktop; this includes the OS, while other standard apps are covered by site licensing.
For the thin client, you don't get a break from the site licenses, but it's:
$250 for the client
$100 for the client license
~$1k for the server for each 10-30 clients
~$1k for the server software(separate from the client licenses).
While you can theoretically utilize CPU more efficiently with a server, server CPUs are more expensive than desktop ones and not actually that much more powerful, and virtual machines for the individual clients imposes a varying amount of overhead. So if you want the same performance in your virtual environment you can't have that many clients per server. On the desktops I don't think you're actually saving that much because of the amount of integration - once you have a chipset capable of connecting to the network, displaying a GUI, and handling various other devices, you're 90% of the way to a full computer, if a basic one.
Honestly, I think that a form of cloud/distributed computing might actually make more sense from an economic perspective - some method to eliminate central servers by making the desktops do double duty.
I think that what you'd need to make thin clients make sense would be some sort of computing chip that doesn't scale down - IE 10X the expense, 100X the parallel computing power, or even 100X the expense, 10000X the computing.
you have fewer physical assets to manage
In my experience, it's MORE physical assets - you go from a computer/monitor/K&M to thinclient/monitor/K&M AND a server for every 10-100 users.
hardware failures are treated as 'maintenance window' scenarios, or a quick plop onto someone's desk.
Already are - it's just the computer has the 'standard image'
* Software infrastructure upgrades are fast: instead of 100, 500, etc. targets to upgrade, you've got 10, 50.
Our updates are automatically pushed by SMS and other software. It's not actually that noticable.
You are no longer bound so much to the 'hardware upgrade cycle'.
We've already gone to a 5 year refresh cycle. How much more would thin clients save us?
Don't get me wrong; I actually like the tech. I just don't think it's quite there yet.
If I had my way we WOULD be using linux thinclients and desktops for 99% of users. But I don't have my way, so I gotta deal.
On thin clients - I especially liked the part where I could 'lock' my session, walk to another thin client, 'log in', and have my session pop up on the new machine. I liked that my stuff was backed up more, that I really wouldn't have to worry about patches.
I didn't like the number of autostart applications the administrators put in there; Do I really need a word document, a chat client, and a couple other custom applications(that I hardly use) starting up whenever I log in? This is a problem even for a physical machine; but at least with it I have a better chance of getting my way.
We can't even get our people off of windows desktops, what makes you think we can get them onto Ubunto at the same time as we go thin client?
Having used some actual thin clients, it's not bad, though I wouldn't want to game on it.
I think the core point would be that because of the way licensing works - you have to buy the client, pay for a license for the client, a license for all software used on the client(if you're going to be legal), it ends up actually being more expensive than a bottom line, but still capable full PC.
The HD adds, what, $20-40? The licenses for our thin clients was more like $100.
NOT the GP, but the 30% caught my attention, so I'll provide a source - False Rape Reporting
Dr. Kanin found 41% of accustations were found to be 'false'. Two studies - one by the FBI and one by Britain, using 'similar methodology' found 8%, but 'does not include accusers who drop out of hte justice process'.
Wiki lists 45%, 41%, 8%, 8%. Average of 25.5% across 4 quoted figures.
Depending on how you define a 'rape accusation', 30% is a reasonable figure, I think. One critical difference would be whether your standard requires reporting to the police, for example.
I had a friend who was accused of rape by a girl - the police hardly even bothered to take a report from her, because they'd lost count of how many times she's tried it. Very much a case of 'crying wolf'. Think 'crazy stalker chick'. It was figured out she was lying within minutes in this case - he had an airtight alibi for when she said it occured.
She's the type who puts additional stress on women who have really been assaulted, because additional police resources are taken up by her false accusations and it makes the cops doubt anybody who comes in.
While I fully support rapists going to prison; I think that woman needed to spend some time behind bars herself for false reporting. But that also makes me grimace- if you've made a false rape report, you're more likely to follow through and put an innocent man behind bars simply to protect yourself.
It's *complicated*, but we need to find a proper balance - I'm thinking if you make a false report, that's beyond obvious, or if it comes out that you maliciously falsified the charge and it resulted in the conviction of an innocent, you need to spend some time in prison. If you fess up BEFORE the trial; then we'll let you go(for that offense).
It's kinda like the military's drug policy - self identify and you'll face no charges. Wait until you're caught, charges.
You need the extra battery cars, obviously. You need somebody to decouple the locomotive & battery, another to drive the locomotive, a switch track to move the battery pack off the main line, then another switch track to move the charged battery car ONTO the track. Then the individual has to couple everything back up - I think there's at least 3 connections that would be needed - the electric for powering the locomotive, pneumatic for the braking system, your actual physical connection, etc...
Remember, diesel-electric motivation is pushing how efficient diesel engines can be in the first place, limiting any such gains.
Given the limitations of batteries, you're looking at needing a LOT more substations to do your swaps. I considered using train cars - but swapping cars is more complicated than what you might think.
I disagree - it takes a certain amount of power to keep the train going, and at that size they can get the diesel engines used to power it quite efficient. Plus, they tend to be kept moving nearly 24-7, limiting your opportunities to recharge. You could play with battery swaps, but then you're looking at moving at what would probably be a multi-million dollar battery pack with a winch, vs pouring in a few hundred/thousand dollars worth of diesel fuel.
A bunch better way to spend money is developing new battery tech and at looking at utilizing solar energy to power them. That, or get over the stigma against nuclear tech and utilize small personal reactors for energy...
Thing is, billions are already being spent on developing battery and solar tech. $30M is a drop in the bucket, but could possibly point to a way to make things like lubricating oil, aviation fuel, etc... from biological sources economically.
Unfortuantly, hydrochemicals still beat batteries like a red headed stepchild when it comes to energy density, and will for the forseeable future. So in applications where you NEED that density, demand isn't going away. Examples I can think of - airplanes, long haul trucks/trains*, backup power generators, etc..
*Just too expensive to run wires over that much territory
As for the AC about nuclear cars - neutrons aren't actually that big of a deal; a single sheet of metal is normally sufficient to stop them.
The government isn't so much buying stock as it's buying securities(IE Bonds), still, this displaces money into the stock market.
Except there is very little evidence of additional casualties among the wild life.
True. The only case I remember is certain birds who are actually nesting on/in the actual sarcophagus. They had approximately twice the mutation rate, but given that most of the bird species laid eggs of four and that the nestlings normally ended up pushing out weaker siblings anyways - it vanished into the 'noise'.
That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel.
Blatently false, and yet it shows up in every thread about nuclear matters.
Our inability to dispose of spent fuel is a political problem, not a technical one.
Options:
1. Reprocess - it's still 90% or so usable fuel, if repurified. - The remaining isotopes tend to stay radioactive for a lot less time; more like 300 years, not thousands.
2. Use in breeder/alternate reactors
3. Bury in salt mines
4. Dump at sea into subduction zone
There's more, including a technology under development to do neutron bombardment to force fission quicker and artificially accellerate decay.
Still, I oppose just doing #3/4 until #1 or 2 is done because, well, it's still usable, why would we WANT to throw it away? Why spend the effort to design a vault good for thousands of years when I figure we'd just end up digging it back up in a couple centuries to use it as fuel again anyways?
Don't forget that you can keep store a multi-decade amount of waste from a multi-gigawatt plant in what's essentially an extra deep pool.
I think you're taking his statement too far.
There's a large difference between saying that Chernobyl caused/causes less damage to the 'ecosystem' than humans and saying that animal life is equal to human life.
Basically, Chernobyl ended up creating an unintended nature preserve. Much like some nuke test sites in the USA, the NASA exclusion zone around their launch sites, the DMZ between North and South Korea, etc...
Due to mild dangers that the animals don't really notice - with their higher breeding rates and shorter lifespans, additional casualties are lost in the noise. Especially once you realize that they're not being hunted by people, pushed out of habitat, or dealing with the chemical runoff and pollution from human habitation.
I hunt, and have no problems saying that the lack of humans around Chernobyl has done more to encourage an area richly populated by animal life than the radiation from the reactor has done to prevent it.
OTOH, it makes complete logical sense to say that the children of diplomats and our troops born while abroad are natural born citizens of the United States. It’d be a flat-out insult to them any other way. “Sorry, but since you’re serving your country abroad we’ll reward your dedication by making your child ineligible to ever run for President."
My point would be that neither is it logical to deny the child of a citizen citizenship even if the citizen happens to be out of country when she gives birth.
Since Obama's mother is a US Citizen, he's a US Citizen.
I'd echo SleazyRidr, but I have a more practical solution - they normally test 2 myths per episode, so save the nursing myths for an episode where the opposite myth is suitably explodey.
Maybe it's been long enough from 9/11 to go after the conspiracy theorists and test various 9/11 'theories'.
On second thought, still too soon.
I don't even really care about the funding; my fire department got a fair bit of federal funding, but said funding mostly went to cover federal firefighting requirements. If they'd stayed out of it our equipment would have been a bit more 'hillbilly', but still functional for a fraction of the price.
As a member of the volunteer fire department, do people really expect me to let my own house burn down because of some principle?
That's the other thing - I might disagree with certain policies, but as long as I'm helping to pay for them I might as well take advantage of them to get SOME of my money back.
I think that Lord Kano is still more right though. It says 'natural born', being born a citizen is good enough for me. Whether it's in country or out of country to a US Citizen parent.
I personally think it's funny that for all the Birther's ranting, if you DQ'd Obama you'd logically have to DQ McCain.
That's assuming they manage to get the same concentration on the targeting.
Remember, attacking warships are going to be moving. Still, I'd imagine that a city might be about to come up with more than 500 soldiers, and they'll be a little more dedicated to practicing their aim than kids.
After that, though, you're back to the attackers wetting their boats down first, using their own shields as mirrors, and having multiple boats.
I wouldn't be surprised if it'd been used as a blinding/harrassing tactic though. Even getting the attacking boats to lose synchronization on their landing could make a big difference in the fight.
Don't forget the need for calm waters and the the sailors and soldiers in the attacking boats NOT tossing the occasional bucket of water on the burn point over the course of two hours.
If I was going to do the mirror thing, I think I'd concentrate more on blinding any navigators and hope they end up blundering into rocks, reefs, or other obstruction, possibly man-made. Even each other.
I find this to be very interesting, seeing as how I was initially thinking of a screwdriver equivalent to an impact wrench/drill - the ultrasonics acting to overcome static friction to make removing the screw easier.
There's obviously a market for him. There are some roles suited for his acting skills.
For some reason, some roles call for 'understated' emotional expression. Easily confused with 'face of wood'. ;)
Clint Eastwood and John Wayne both did a good 'understated', but they both had faces weatherbeaten enough to make it more an 'I've experienced enough that I'm unimpressed with your problem'.
At least, that's my impression.
Using the wikipedia site,
Mostly Civil, with a good dash of Minarchism*, a bit of conservatism, a moderate amound of Green, and a smidge of transhumanism. For a libertarian I can get downright socialistic when it comes to taking care of people, but I'm all about giving a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand-out'. IE I don't have welfare, I have workfare. Instead of extending unemployment, I get very generous with retraining programs(yes, I'll provide support while you're in class).
I'm pretty standard on the 'victimless crimes' aspect, and believe that any rules should be held to an effectiveness standard. Want to keep DUI illegal? Show some proof that it's more effective at saving lives and property from DUI accidents than other methods.
*While a pure Minarchist would still be nailing this guy - he managed to do all three things they say government courts should still handle. Personally, I think that the government still needs to be involved in a bit more. For example, I have no problems with going entirely towards private schools, but I believe that they still need a bit of government control/funding. It's in my and the state's interest to make sure education standards are reasonable(teaching evolution over creationism), and that the kids of even the poorest/most negligent parents still get a practical education.
Basically, I don't want to have to support people, but as long as we're not willing to let them starve, we might as well be efficient in our support. If an education program is more efficient than policing after the fact, why NOT do the education?
I disagree with most parts of anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, socialism, and geolibertarianism*.
*I'm going to have to look more into this one. How the heck do you set the rent rate? Can you not pay rent on land your house is on, and still exclude people from the house itself(it's a product of labor, after all)? What about land improvements?