Yes. I think you should go puke. You seem to have eaten something nasty which is making you a bit incoherent. Something about elves, empires, and leftists. But I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
If only everything where as easy as/.ers make them out to be. There's a bit more to precision guided missiles than these 5 points.
You need guidance systems which can respond quickly enough to the computer in 5 to make a difference.
You need to be able to take your readings fast enough so that the speed of your missile doesn't totally throw off your reading.
Your missile needs to have enough spare payload space to carry all this extra equipment.
Furthermore you don't need GPS to know the exact location of your target, you only need it to determine your exact location and there are other ways of doing this.
And consider that China has both nuclear weapons (which don't need to be terribly accurate) and balistic missiles (which can be guided through dead reconing systems). China would certainly use Galileo for future weapons development but it doesn't depend on it, and if it did it has enough resources to build its own, without partering with Europe.
Me too. I enjoy the occasionaly debate on/. which does not degenerate into name calling.
As far as I know GPS was not restricted at all during Gulf War II. But the US government has publicly stated that it may engage such restrictions if it feels the need for it. Obviously Europe would not have the power to override this decision. And during the first Gulf War the US demonstrated that it was willing to do so. Unfortunately I don't know how long the restrictions where in place at that time.If you where running a union which had things like airplanes and ships that depended on a positioning system, wouldn't you want to make damn sure that someone else coulnd't turn it off on you?
It is true that Galileo also has potential military uses but it is unfair to compare it to nuclear power. Nuclear weapons give a military a far greater advantage than precision guided missiles. While China is in some regards openly hostile to the US their intentions are far more predictable than those of "rogue nations" China has fairly predictable intrests and they certainly aren't totalitarian in the same way that North Korea is totalitarian. I'd also guess that if Europe did not agree to work with China on Galileo China would just go ahead and develop it's own system. Given that they are planning on sending a man to the moon, they can probably do it. And then you'd have 3 positioning systems.
I'm also a bit unsure of your use of the word "opposed" the positioning systems aren't really doing anything counter to each other it's just that the more such systems exist that harder it is for any one entity to controle them. On the other hand if the US really did have an alliance relationship with Europe and enaged in a war with the blessing of the UN, Europe would probably be happy to restrict it's own system to prevent it's use by a common enemy. That's a guess, of course, but that's the sort of thing which allies do. If, of course the diplomatic history between the two countries has been one of contention it would probably be pretty difficult to get Europe to agree to something like that.
Perhaps I should qualify my statement regarding North Korea. North Korea could pose a significant threat to it's immediate neighbors but a Taepodong missile doesn't have nearly the range necessary to reach the US. Of course, this means that North Korea could defend itself against a US attack but the international community generally regards self defense as a legitimate use of military technology.
I'm not sure how to comment on that last statement though. Then again I haven't got a bitch to go home to..
Since when? I think this whole article was only posted about an hour ago.
It sounds like you're suffering from CSS (Coding Stress Syndrome). That's when you've spent so much time coding instead of sleeping that you start talking to your friends and wondering why they won't compile.
Europe chafs at the idea of having it's access to GPS denied every time the US get in a war with someone. If anything the US is being a bad ally by insisting on the ability to cut off Europe's access to a positioning system.
The civilian "spin" is not a crock. The US has a larger military than the Europe and China combined and both of them have many more civilian uses for a positioning system than military uses.
Furthermore the idea of "cheap" precision guided bombs is a bit silly. It takes a hell of alot more than unfettered access to an accurate positioning system to build a precision guided weapon. The technology for cruise missiles is a closely held secret of the US military, and most "smart weapons" are guided not by GPS but by laser marking.
Iran and North Korea would hardly be helped by access to a positioning system because they don't even have missles with enough range to make such access usefull.
This is why I made my earlier joke about "ally" meaning "lackey", or "bitch" in American English. The US does not seem to consider someone an ally if they have even the possibility of doing anything counter to the will of the US. True alliance is an agreement of partners not of masters and slaves.
But his thread started partially in response to someone who claimed that the US would have to develop such jamming technologies and that such a move would be a response to an arms race which the EU and/or China started.
But to increase the accuracy of the test the jamming devices should also have been used on the French tanks.
That is, if you want to limit the exercise to a test of the tanks without allowing clever tricks on the parts of the commanders to effect the experiment.
But it's not an arms race until you start treating it as military technology. Galileo is mostly geared for civilian use. If the US starts comming up with technology to jam it, then it's the US which is turning it into an arms race.
I fail to see how this is evidence that France is not an ally of the US.
It's not as if France where jamming US tanks during actual combat and endangering lives or equipment. Granted it's a skeezy, and probably illegal, thing to do during contract bidding. But the US is way ahead of most of the rest of the world in that game.
Furthermore the article does not indicate whether or not the French tanks would have been susceptible to the same technique. If not it's a totally valid variable in the test. If you can do this with 1 foot transmitters it's likely something that real enemies would use. Except they'd back it up with anti-tank missiles.
And, since it happened during peace time, the DOD now has the opportunity to come up with a workaround for this problem so it won't effect them during actual combat.
But stick to the topic at hand. How is the EU's decision to build it's own positioning system un-ally like behavior?
How is this an arms race started by the Europeans? Didn't the US have GPS up first?
The US doesn't have to develop jamming equipment against Galileo.
I find it interesting that in American English, "ally" apparantly means "lackey", or perhaps "bitch". As in "What?! Our supposed allies dare to question us? What arrogance!"
I'll have to disagree with that man. I remember going to the American Museum of Natural History about 20 years ago and seeing the exhibit where you could push two buttons and see the expected changes to New York if temperatures rose (flooding) or fell (freezing) an average of 3 degrees.
Granted, this was not a scientific study, and the AMNH has been known to make mistakes in the past (Brontosaurus) but they do tend to represent the general concesus of scientific thought at the time pretty well.
So are you saying "I am a physicist", as in I have one of those worthless pieces of paper known as a PhD which only serves to manipulate others into thinking I know what I'm talking about? Or as in "I watched a bunch of "Bill Nye the Science Guy"?
I put stuff in the to "me:" lines in the first two situations and they showed up in the preview. The gist of it is still there but in case anyone is interested they where
1: hits hold and takes another crack at beating the rock monster in Metroid Prime.
Oh yeah. I love screwing with telemarketers. Here are some of my favorites:
1) me: "Can you hold please?" them: "Sure." me:
2) me: me: What are you wearing?
3) me: "Excuse me, is telemarketing your primary means of reaching your target consumer group?" them: "Uh, I think so." me: "Well did you know that there are currently 85 million hosts on the internet and that number is growing every day. For a $49.95 setup fee and just $19.95 a month I can set you up with a web site which can potentially market your product or service to each and every one of them..."
4) Then there's always the famous Seinfeld one. me: "Sorry I'm kinda busy right now but how about you give me your home phone number and I'll call you sometime around dinner?"
5) them: "Am I speaking with ?" me: "Sorry, he's dead."
Yes and no. There is a grey area between when something is critial and when it is merely stating facts about someone. But by the same token there is also a grey area in defining "assault". Yet we don't have a problem with people calling a casual bump "assault".
And furthermore even if the law said that anyone who is even mentioned on a web site had the right of reply, I don't see how the miniscule effort invovled in posting a single link constitutes a chilling effect.
I don't think this will have anywhere near as chilling an effect as people seem to be afraid of. Especially on the net. If all you have to do is link to the response this takes almost no resources away from your site.
Someone posted that an additional part of the burden would be in verifying the identity of the respondant. But the law could easily put the onus of proof on the respondant.
The law also doesn't say that everyone can post anything on everyones web site it only says that you need to post replies to statements which are critical of someone, and then only if they come from whoever you are critical of.
Several people have pointed out that Nemesis tanked because it sucked. I didn't watch the movie because I knew it was going to suck. Every review I read said that it was totaly devoid of any plot. That's not necessarily a bad thing but other movies without plot do well by providing something else. If the reviews had said, "It had no plot but you've got to check out the killer special effects." people would have watched it. If the reviews had said, "Not much plot but I laughed so hard I pissed myself." people would have watched it.
People complain that the movie was just like a series episode but I say that exactly the opposite is true. A large part of what sets Star Trek apart from other crappy SciFi series is that the TV episodes use the story as a form for discussing real issues. They discuss politics, religion, sociology, racism.
Noone wants to watch a crappy shoot-em-up with so-so special effects. That's why it sucked, and that's why it tanked.
I think he's suggesting that there might be some carbon introduced during the refineing process. For instance, in order to distill something you need to heat it up. Carbon oxidation reactions are typically used to generate this heat.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I think you should go puke.
You seem to have eaten something nasty which is making you a bit incoherent. Something about elves, empires, and leftists. But I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
If only everything where as easy as /.ers make them out to be. There's a bit more to precision guided missiles than these 5 points.
You need guidance systems which can respond quickly enough to the computer in 5 to make a difference.
You need to be able to take your readings fast enough so that the speed of your missile doesn't totally throw off your reading.
Your missile needs to have enough spare payload space to carry all this extra equipment.
Furthermore you don't need GPS to know the exact location of your target, you only need it to determine your exact location and there are other ways of doing this.
And consider that China has both nuclear weapons (which don't need to be terribly accurate) and balistic missiles (which can be guided through dead reconing systems). China would certainly use Galileo for future weapons development but it doesn't depend on it, and if it did it has enough resources to build its own, without partering with Europe.
Me too. I enjoy the occasionaly debate on /. which does not degenerate into name calling.
As far as I know GPS was not restricted at all during Gulf War II. But the US government has publicly stated that it may engage such restrictions if it feels the need for it. Obviously Europe would not have the power to override this decision. And during the first Gulf War the US demonstrated that it was willing to do so. Unfortunately I don't know how long the restrictions where in place at that time.If you where running a union which had things like airplanes and ships that depended on a positioning system, wouldn't you want to make damn sure that someone else coulnd't turn it off on you?
It is true that Galileo also has potential military uses but it is unfair to compare it to nuclear power. Nuclear weapons give a military a far greater advantage than precision guided missiles. While China is in some regards openly hostile to the US their intentions are far more predictable than those of "rogue nations" China has fairly predictable intrests and they certainly aren't totalitarian in the same way that North Korea is totalitarian. I'd also guess that if Europe did not agree to work with China on Galileo China would just go ahead and develop it's own system. Given that they are planning on sending a man to the moon, they can probably do it. And then you'd have 3 positioning systems.
I'm also a bit unsure of your use of the word "opposed" the positioning systems aren't really doing anything counter to each other it's just that the more such systems exist that harder it is for any one entity to controle them. On the other hand if the US really did have an alliance relationship with Europe and enaged in a war with the blessing of the UN, Europe would probably be happy to restrict it's own system to prevent it's use by a common enemy. That's a guess, of course, but that's the sort of thing which allies do. If, of course the diplomatic history between the two countries has been one of contention it would probably be pretty difficult to get Europe to agree to something like that.
Perhaps I should qualify my statement regarding North Korea. North Korea could pose a significant threat to it's immediate neighbors but a Taepodong missile doesn't have nearly the range necessary to reach the US. Of course, this means that North Korea could defend itself against a US attack but the international community generally regards self defense as a legitimate use of military technology.
I'm not sure how to comment on that last statement though. Then again I haven't got a bitch to go home to..
The jammers where remote controled so there weren't really any people to kill.
The soldiers in the tanks aren't allowed to kill the other soldiers in the tanks either.
For the purposes of an exercise it's interesting to see how jammers affect the performance of tanks even if there is a possible workaround.
Since when? I think this whole article was only posted about an hour ago.
It sounds like you're suffering from CSS (Coding Stress Syndrome). That's when you've spent so much time coding instead of sleeping that you start talking to your friends and wondering why they won't compile.
Europe chafs at the idea of having it's access to GPS denied every time the US get in a war with someone. If anything the US is being a bad ally by insisting on the ability to cut off Europe's access to a positioning system.
The civilian "spin" is not a crock. The US has a larger military than the Europe and China combined and both of them have many more civilian uses for a positioning system than military uses.
Furthermore the idea of "cheap" precision guided bombs is a bit silly. It takes a hell of alot more than unfettered access to an accurate positioning system to build a precision guided weapon. The technology for cruise missiles is a closely held secret of the US military, and most "smart weapons" are guided not by GPS but by laser marking.
Iran and North Korea would hardly be helped by access to a positioning system because they don't even have missles with enough range to make such access usefull.
This is why I made my earlier joke about "ally" meaning "lackey", or "bitch" in American English. The US does not seem to consider someone an ally if they have even the possibility of doing anything counter to the will of the US. True alliance is an agreement of partners not of masters and slaves.
I don't think they should.
But his thread started partially in response to someone who claimed that the US would have to develop such jamming technologies and that such a move would be a response to an arms race which the EU and/or China started.
I was arguing against this.
That was partially my point.
But to increase the accuracy of the test the jamming devices should also have been used on the French tanks.
That is, if you want to limit the exercise to a test of the tanks without allowing clever tricks on the parts of the commanders to effect the experiment.
But it's not an arms race until you start treating it as military technology. Galileo is mostly geared for civilian use. If the US starts comming up with technology to jam it, then it's the US which is turning it into an arms race.
I fail to see how this is evidence that France is not an ally of the US.
It's not as if France where jamming US tanks during actual combat and endangering lives or equipment. Granted it's a skeezy, and probably illegal, thing to do during contract bidding. But the US is way ahead of most of the rest of the world in that game.
Furthermore the article does not indicate whether or not the French tanks would have been susceptible to the same technique. If not it's a totally valid variable in the test. If you can do this with 1 foot transmitters it's likely something that real enemies would use. Except they'd back it up with anti-tank missiles.
And, since it happened during peace time, the DOD now has the opportunity to come up with a workaround for this problem so it won't effect them during actual combat.
But stick to the topic at hand. How is the EU's decision to build it's own positioning system un-ally like behavior?
How is this an arms race started by the Europeans?
Didn't the US have GPS up first?
The US doesn't have to develop jamming equipment against Galileo.
I find it interesting that in American English, "ally" apparantly means "lackey", or perhaps "bitch". As in "What?! Our supposed allies dare to question us? What arrogance!"
I'll have to disagree with that man. I remember going to the American Museum of Natural History about 20 years ago and seeing the exhibit where you could push two buttons and see the expected changes to New York if temperatures rose (flooding) or fell (freezing) an average of 3 degrees.
Granted, this was not a scientific study, and the AMNH has been known to make mistakes in the past (Brontosaurus) but they do tend to represent the general concesus of scientific thought at the time pretty well.
So are you saying "I am a physicist", as in I have one of those worthless pieces of paper known as a PhD which only serves to manipulate others into thinking I know what I'm talking about? Or as in "I watched a bunch of "Bill Nye the Science Guy"?
Make up your mind.
Hate to nitpick here since you're mostly right.
Volume can't be equivalent to weight.
Volume is measured in units like cubic decimeters. Weight is measured in units like Newtons. No amount of one is equivalent to the other.
But if certain other variables are fixed there can be a relationship between the two.
For example, one cubic decimeter of water has one kilo of mass, which weighs 9.8 Newtons on the surface of the Earth.
Yeah, but I though since I checked the plain text only box it would ignore that.
Did you see the movie "Hackers"
:)
They had this hacking challenge where they ended up declaring their victim legally dead.
Yeah you gotta be careful with stuff like that
Re: 12)
That reminded me of the character in "A Fish Called Wanda" who kept saying "What was that part in the middle again?"
You see people this is what information sharing is all about.
I've now expanded my "annoy the telemarketer" reptoire by a considerable amount.
Wow. That's even ruder than I would normally expect from a telemarketer
Damnit!
I put stuff in the to "me:" lines in the first two situations and they showed up in the preview.
The gist of it is still there but in case anyone is interested they where
1: hits hold and takes another crack at beating the rock monster in Metroid Prime.
2: breathes heavily.
Oh yeah. I love screwing with telemarketers.
Here are some of my favorites:
1)
me: "Can you hold please?"
them: "Sure."
me:
2)
me:
me: What are you wearing?
3)
me: "Excuse me, is telemarketing your primary means of reaching your target consumer group?"
them: "Uh, I think so."
me: "Well did you know that there are currently 85 million hosts on the internet and that number is growing every day. For a $49.95 setup fee and just $19.95 a month I can set you up with a web site which can potentially market your product or service to each and every one of them..."
4)
Then there's always the famous Seinfeld one.
me: "Sorry I'm kinda busy right now but how about you give me your home phone number and I'll call you sometime around dinner?"
5)
them: "Am I speaking with ?"
me: "Sorry, he's dead."
Yes and no.
There is a grey area between when something is critial and when it is merely stating facts about someone.
But by the same token there is also a grey area in defining "assault". Yet we don't have a problem with people calling a casual bump "assault".
And furthermore even if the law said that anyone who is even mentioned on a web site had the right of reply, I don't see how the miniscule effort invovled in posting a single link constitutes a chilling effect.
I don't think this will have anywhere near as chilling an effect as people seem to be afraid of.
Especially on the net.
If all you have to do is link to the response this takes almost no resources away from your site.
Someone posted that an additional part of the burden would be in verifying the identity of the respondant. But the law could easily put the onus of proof on the respondant.
The law also doesn't say that everyone can post anything on everyones web site it only says that you need to post replies to statements which are critical of someone, and then only if they come from whoever you are critical of.
Several people have pointed out that Nemesis tanked because it sucked.
I didn't watch the movie because I knew it was going to suck.
Every review I read said that it was totaly devoid of any plot. That's not necessarily a bad thing but other movies without plot do well by providing something else.
If the reviews had said, "It had no plot but you've got to check out the killer special effects." people would have watched it.
If the reviews had said, "Not much plot but I laughed so hard I pissed myself." people would have watched it.
People complain that the movie was just like a series episode but I say that exactly the opposite is true. A large part of what sets Star Trek apart from other crappy SciFi series is that the TV episodes use the story as a form for discussing real issues. They discuss politics, religion, sociology, racism.
Noone wants to watch a crappy shoot-em-up with so-so special effects.
That's why it sucked, and that's why it tanked.
I think he's suggesting that there might be some carbon introduced during the refineing process.
For instance, in order to distill something you need to heat it up. Carbon oxidation reactions are typically used to generate this heat.