The discussion is about scientists hiding their beliefs because of perceived hostility towards those beliefs. You appear to have plenty of that hostility.
Groups with deep beliefs always push for laws to be interpreted in line with those values. This is true if you're the ACLU trying to get a cross removed from public land (or formerly public land) because you feel it is akin to state-sponsored religion or if you're a church group arguing that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Both are acting in a way consistent with their beliefs and ostensibly working for the greater good. People can disagree completely and still respect one another.
You seem to be in the angry minority who sneaks in during the night to tear the cross down.
Are you angry that people believe in God when you do not? Are you angry because you think God doesn't believe in you? Or are you one of those types who just like to froth at the mouth while tilting at windmills?
You're a jackass who either doesn't have kids or was such an obnoxious dipshit about having them that the other parents hated you.
Toddlers want to use the same things mommy and daddy have. They know the difference between a toy and the real thing. My son had several toy remotes before I finally bought a spare TiVo remote and gave it to him without batteries. He now leaves the remote alone, because he has one also.
This won't be an electronic babysitter - the guy wants something to distract the little brat. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd understand that it need to be durable because kids are FAST, not because he'll be left alone with it for extended periods of time. Hell, I wouldn't trust mine with a Toughbook.
I know the rest of the world seems simple from your mom's basement, but you really should shut the fuck up.
Okay, do you mean to imply that you actually don't mind encumbering your super-mobile computer with a variety of wires and equipment hanging off it? If so, why bother with the super-mobile in the first place? It's basically tied down to the work surface it's on at that point. No, merely that for my usage, the laptops (IBM ThinkPad X40 & formerly a Sharp PC-MM10) were only hooked up to an external optical drive once or twice a year. That was to install or upgrade the Linux distro on them. If I had a MacBook Air, I forsee the same level of usage.
I understand Windows users are more tethered to discs. I understand that in certain corporate environments, it is expected for the user to have an optical drive with them on the road. What I take exception to is this notion that the Air and the new ThinkPad are somehow "crippled". They are not crippled, merely designed for a different market segment - one which I (and others like me) happen to fall in to and do not want to see disappear to appease the "I want it to have darn near everything, but be magically tiny" crowd. We are willing to compromise on features in order to meet our larger need.
If you offered me a laptop that was the exact same size and weight as these with an optical drive, I wouldn't bitch that it had one. I would, however, wonder how much smaller and lighter it could have been without a drive that I consider unnecessary to have built-in. Thanks.
What I was taking exception to was the idea that just because one can order the external peripherals, that's the same as having them built-in. In that case, you didn't make your point very well. What you actually said was:
Generally speaking, it's safe to assume that anyone wanting a super-mobile computer like an Air or this ThinkPad doesn't want to have wires and dongles they have to carry in their bag and/or hanging off the computer. And my point was that I never carry the stupid thing away from home.
Good for you. Cute, but don't write [emphasis added]:
Generally speaking, it's safe to assume that anyone wanting a super-mobile computer And then act like the replyer (who falls under your generalization) is egotistical for giving you their opinion.
...I work in a corporate IT environment... Great, but not all ultra-portable users are corporate or business users. My ThinkPad X40 is strictly for personal use and I know I'm not alone. I was not making a broad generalization, but merely pointing out that yours was far too sweeping.
Thumb drives are great, but there's still a lot of optical disc usage going on, especially in US DoD circles, where they somehow see writable optical discs as different than writable USB flash drives. (I think that's bogus, too, but I don't make the rules.) Again, not applicable to the majority of ultra-portable users, who are not using them for official DoD-related business. Oh, and the issue with the thumb drives is a general prohibition on uncontrolled magnetic media - for classified data. General thumb drive usage on NIPR is fine (I do it all of the time). Are you letting your employees travel & watch DVDs on airplanes on their SIPR laptops???
In case you're wondering, I'm a communications officer, so I do know what I'm talking about on this issue. Magnetic media for UNCLAS and FOUO data is fine when safeguarded properly.
Or perhaps you are in the 3.12 lbs ultra-portable-with-an-optical-drive market (this ThinkPad). Eh? Yes! Different markets was exactly my point! If you want a "3.12 lbs ultra-portable-with-an-optical-drive", more power to you. Just don't be the guy whining that IBM or Apple offers me a 3 lbs or less system without it, because many of us do not need or want it.
No, it's not safe to assume that at all. I do not want an installed optical drive in my ultra-portable. And I know I am not alone, so your assumption is false. I want the smallest, lightest laptop that I can reasonably use.
There is no good reason for me to need an optical drive away from home. Do you travel about the country (or even your town) randomly installing software at each stop? No? Me either.
If I need a piece of your data, I have a thumb drive and I bet you do too. If I really need to use an optical disk while roaming, then it sounds like I am in the 5 lbs sub-notebook market (MacBook), and not the 3 lbs ultra-portable market (Air).
I'm not angry with you, but I am annoyed with this whole perception some people seem to have. That being the claim that most people want an optical drive in their ultra-light laptops.
Bullshit. People need to get their markets straight. The Air is NOT a sub-notebook. It is an ultra-portable. Meaning it has the bare-bones necessities in the lightest and smallest form factor possible this side of a PDA.
I have an IBM X40 and had a Sharp MM10 (until it died). Between the two, I've been using them for four or five years. Both weigh in under three pounds and neither has an optical drive. I have never missed it, save once or twice in all of that time. I have an external USB combo drive for when I need to do an OS install. They run Linux fine, they are really small and super-light - that's the point!
Now, I'm not claiming to represent the whole market by any means. And I am not defending the lack of a removable battery or only having one USB port on the Air. But the one criticism I cannot understand is the optical drive piece. If you want a small, relatively light notebook with an optical drive, get a five pound sub-notebook MacBook - not a three pound ultra-portable Air.
I have an IBM X40 purchased about a year or so before the Lenovo split (which means they were already making it).
It is the most durable laptop I have ever owned or used short of a Toughbook. Which is great for use in the field, but way too heavy & impractical everywhere else.
Did I mention it weighs in under three pounds? Highly recommended.
Particularly as most of the users of mapping are businesses--this doesn't apply quite as much to tax maps, but our GIS layers are pretty expensive to produce and when 90% of your requests for GIS maps are from business who would otherwise need to do the survey work themselves, it's a fine line between public access and corporate welfare. What's the problem? They pay taxes just like you and me - no, wait, they pay even higher rates. Should companies not get similar services to idividuals for their tax dollars as well?
Fact is, the only way to prevent a nation from getting "the bomb" is to infiltrate their development program and sabotage it from within over an extended period. That's exactly what Mossad is doing, so don't worry about it, ok?
Damn. Wish I had paid more attention at that classified Mossad briefing we were all at last week.
Thanks for the reminder. We'll all go back to letting it be someone else's problem.
social disease n. 1. A sexually transmitted disease; a venereal disease.
If you truly have Asperger's, then what little humor you have will be of the dry variety. Missing the sarcasm of my signature I can understand, but definition play in the personality comment should be within your grasp.
Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.
I have a tendency to agree more with the tactics in your signature
And here I thought I was just funny...
But given that we're still trying to fight CONVENTIONAL warfare battles and limit the collateral damage we do- nothing beats small arms for selective fire.
Well, the idea is not so much small arms fire as it is concentric rings of death. That's the idea with the slightly older concept of HAW-MAW-LAW. You scale down as you close in to mop up the progressively smaller pieces. There is overlap involved and the example of the mutally-supporting tanks and foot-mobile infantry is an excellent one. The overall idea is to put the enemy in what we call the "combined arms dilemma," which means he gets to choose how he wants to die.
Why would I expose stories that have already been exposed? or did you think I magically summoned the video and articles I posted in this discussion?
I just searched through every post you made to this story. I found two "links" that did not exist and one that did.
The one that did was to a story that may or may not be true. The military spokesman said that the allegation had not been heard yet. Which means that we have not had a chance to investigate it. That makes it pretty one-sided, does it not?
It could be a rogue squad went crazy. Much more likely is that a few terrorists got their hands on some surplus cammies and a few AR-15s and tried to frame US forces. I'm not saying it was one or the other - simply that your single article is not proof of anything, let alone all the crazy bullshit you've been spouting.
Yes, infantry and tanks fight together. They mutually support each other and are very effective that way. You don't have many tank-on-tank battles nowadays - the Battle 73 Easting was the exception, not the rule.
They most effective way to fight is to have nearly everything in your arsenal pounding an objective at once. Think of it like layers on an onion. For example, you might first have the artillery (or NGFS), which gives way to fixed-wing CAS, then mortars, then helos, then tanks, then crew-served weapons, then individual weapons.
There are a million variations based on the objective and the resources availible. The real keys are deconflicting fires and managing the time-space aspects. You can't have fixed-wing CAS at the same time as your mortars, because the flight of their rounds is much more variable than artillery, but it is possible to deconflict arty and fixed-wing CAS for overlapping fires on the objective.
So, yes, we do use tanks and foot-moblie infantry together and we do train that way. It is a powerful combination and not going away anytime soon. Even when we were training to fight Ivan, the idea was the infantry was there to kill other infantry that might pose a risk to the tanks. The tanks did what they were best at - killing other tanks.
Hell, the news piped into soldiers in military controlled facilities is monitored and filtered during peacetime. In fact, sometimes potential recruits have to put up in a hotel to make scheduled times for physicals and ASVAB exams. Because you are a citizen and not military personel they advise you that the phones are monitored and the television is censored.
This is utter bullshit. I got all the same cable channels that you do. I got them when I was enlisted in the barracks and I could watch whatever the hell I wanted. I also had a normal Internet connection (again from Comcast). No one monitored shit. I know because I was comm then and I'm a comm officer now. If you think we have the resources to play big brother in garrison, you're wrong. Do outgoing emails get monitored when you are deployed? Of course, because INFOSEC is a huge and valid concern.
The reason you get put up in a hotel room is so they can get your ass on a bus at zero-dark-thirty to head over to the MEPS. They don't advise you about anything to do monitoring because there isn't any. Who would even monitor you? The recruiters? Yeah, four guys working out of a strip mall can monitor the TV and phones of twenty random assholes waiting to get their physicals. Get real. Or maybe you think the staff at the HoJo does it?
Maybe your recruiter lied to you or something. I neither know or care. What I do know and care about is that you are wrong.
An A-10 is a far safer, more deadly and cost effective close support weapon.
Great platform... as for the safer part, well, I know quite a few Marines who would feel safer if they could learn the difference between a BMP and an AAV.
Low-level attack is regarded as 200ft. The only attack aircraft crews that routinely fly that low are RAF.
Really? Know a lot about close air support, do you? I'm pretty sure I do, since I've been a United States Marine for quite some time. And you are very, very wrong. Yes, the RAF may fly at that altitude and they may do it routinely. But if you think they are the only game in town - you're wrong. Your previous post was wrong and this post is wrong, too. CAS isn't defined by a made up altitude. It's defined by the proximity and coordination with a ground combat element. The USAF doesn't restrict the other services from doing anything. The DoD, the President, Congress, and the National Defense Act of 1947 are the main actors defining roles for the services. Marine Corps Aviation's main focus is on CAS and vertical envelopment. Do you think we call on the USAF or the RAF every time we need or want CAS? I could go on and on...
Again, I have no problem with you not knowing or even being critical (provided you make some attempt at being informed). It's when people start talking out their ass about things that they have no idea about that I get pissed. And I don't care if you got a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-buddy's-former-roomate who told you this crap. You are still wrong. Hell, I had a lady tell me a month ago that her brother (who she was very proud of) had enlisted in the Navy and flies the Stealth off aircraft carriers. That's about as wrong as it gets, but at least she wasn't trying to tell someone else that she knew more than them.
Did I say Twonk? What I meant was, um, twonk.
Twonk.
Yeah, you should stick with that for future discussion, as it shows both the quality of your character and the depth of your knowledge.
Those planes don't perform "low-level" raids since they're specifically prohibited from such by the USAF....
The only USAF aircraft that one could factually describe as performing the 'low level attack function' in Iraq would be Apache etc. But I'm not talking about helicopters.
Wow, all of that is wrong. If you have no clue, that's fine - except you're trying to pretend like you do. Just stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is trying to assert authority over you???
The discussion is about scientists hiding their beliefs because of perceived hostility towards those beliefs. You appear to have plenty of that hostility.
Groups with deep beliefs always push for laws to be interpreted in line with those values. This is true if you're the ACLU trying to get a cross removed from public land (or formerly public land) because you feel it is akin to state-sponsored religion or if you're a church group arguing that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Both are acting in a way consistent with their beliefs and ostensibly working for the greater good. People can disagree completely and still respect one another.
You seem to be in the angry minority who sneaks in during the night to tear the cross down.
Are you angry that people believe in God when you do not? Are you angry because you think God doesn't believe in you? Or are you one of those types who just like to froth at the mouth while tilting at windmills?
Grow up.
...on being *exactly* the type of obnoxious jackass they are worried about.
Also, if you're SO worried about them pushing their beliefs, why do you not hesitate to push yours?
-1 Foreign
You're a jackass who either doesn't have kids or was such an obnoxious dipshit about having them that the other parents hated you.
Toddlers want to use the same things mommy and daddy have. They know the difference between a toy and the real thing. My son had several toy remotes before I finally bought a spare TiVo remote and gave it to him without batteries. He now leaves the remote alone, because he has one also.
This won't be an electronic babysitter - the guy wants something to distract the little brat. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd understand that it need to be durable because kids are FAST, not because he'll be left alone with it for extended periods of time. Hell, I wouldn't trust mine with a Toughbook.
I know the rest of the world seems simple from your mom's basement, but you really should shut the fuck up.
I understand Windows users are more tethered to discs. I understand that in certain corporate environments, it is expected for the user to have an optical drive with them on the road. What I take exception to is this notion that the Air and the new ThinkPad are somehow "crippled". They are not crippled, merely designed for a different market segment - one which I (and others like me) happen to fall in to and do not want to see disappear to appease the "I want it to have darn near everything, but be magically tiny" crowd. We are willing to compromise on features in order to meet our larger need.
If you offered me a laptop that was the exact same size and weight as these with an optical drive, I wouldn't bitch that it had one. I would, however, wonder how much smaller and lighter it could have been without a drive that I consider unnecessary to have built-in. Thanks.
...I work in a corporate IT environment... Great, but not all ultra-portable users are corporate or business users. My ThinkPad X40 is strictly for personal use and I know I'm not alone. I was not making a broad generalization, but merely pointing out that yours was far too sweeping. Thumb drives are great, but there's still a lot of optical disc usage going on, especially in US DoD circles, where they somehow see writable optical discs as different than writable USB flash drives. (I think that's bogus, too, but I don't make the rules.) Again, not applicable to the majority of ultra-portable users, who are not using them for official DoD-related business. Oh, and the issue with the thumb drives is a general prohibition on uncontrolled magnetic media - for classified data. General thumb drive usage on NIPR is fine (I do it all of the time). Are you letting your employees travel & watch DVDs on airplanes on their SIPR laptops???In case you're wondering, I'm a communications officer, so I do know what I'm talking about on this issue. Magnetic media for UNCLAS and FOUO data is fine when safeguarded properly. Or perhaps you are in the 3.12 lbs ultra-portable-with-an-optical-drive market (this ThinkPad). Eh? Yes! Different markets was exactly my point! If you want a "3.12 lbs ultra-portable-with-an-optical-drive", more power to you. Just don't be the guy whining that IBM or Apple offers me a 3 lbs or less system without it, because many of us do not need or want it.
No, it's not safe to assume that at all. I do not want an installed optical drive in my ultra-portable. And I know I am not alone, so your assumption is false. I want the smallest, lightest laptop that I can reasonably use.
There is no good reason for me to need an optical drive away from home. Do you travel about the country (or even your town) randomly installing software at each stop? No? Me either.
If I need a piece of your data, I have a thumb drive and I bet you do too. If I really need to use an optical disk while roaming, then it sounds like I am in the 5 lbs sub-notebook market (MacBook), and not the 3 lbs ultra-portable market (Air).
I'm not angry with you, but I am annoyed with this whole perception some people seem to have. That being the claim that most people want an optical drive in their ultra-light laptops.
Bullshit. People need to get their markets straight. The Air is NOT a sub-notebook. It is an ultra-portable. Meaning it has the bare-bones necessities in the lightest and smallest form factor possible this side of a PDA.
I have an IBM X40 and had a Sharp MM10 (until it died). Between the two, I've been using them for four or five years. Both weigh in under three pounds and neither has an optical drive. I have never missed it, save once or twice in all of that time. I have an external USB combo drive for when I need to do an OS install. They run Linux fine, they are really small and super-light - that's the point!
Now, I'm not claiming to represent the whole market by any means. And I am not defending the lack of a removable battery or only having one USB port on the Air. But the one criticism I cannot understand is the optical drive piece. If you want a small, relatively light notebook with an optical drive, get a five pound sub-notebook MacBook - not a three pound ultra-portable Air.
I have an IBM X40 purchased about a year or so before the Lenovo split (which means they were already making it).
It is the most durable laptop I have ever owned or used short of a Toughbook. Which is great for use in the field, but way too heavy & impractical everywhere else.
Did I mention it weighs in under three pounds? Highly recommended.
Damn. Wish I had paid more attention at that classified Mossad briefing we were all at last week.
Thanks for the reminder. We'll all go back to letting it be someone else's problem.
http://www.profane-justice.org/robots.txt:
Not Found
The requested URL
Let's face it - Star Trek on the TI-99/4A rocked!
How about any time? No.
1000 yards, huh? Hmmm... let's do some math:
Max effective range M-16A2 (point target) = 550m
Max effective range M-16A2 (area target) = 800m
1000 yards = 914.4 meters
So my conclusion is... let's see... add that... and... carry... the
I'm sure your bowstaff skills come in handy when you're LARPing with your D & D buddies.
If you truly have Asperger's, then what little humor you have will be of the dry variety. Missing the sarcasm of my signature I can understand, but definition play in the personality comment should be within your grasp.
*sigh*
Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.
And here I thought I was just funny...
Well, the idea is not so much small arms fire as it is concentric rings of death. That's the idea with the slightly older concept of HAW-MAW-LAW. You scale down as you close in to mop up the progressively smaller pieces. There is overlap involved and the example of the mutally-supporting tanks and foot-mobile infantry is an excellent one. The overall idea is to put the enemy in what we call the "combined arms dilemma," which means he gets to choose how he wants to die.
I just searched through every post you made to this story. I found two "links" that did not exist and one that did.
The one that did was to a story that may or may not be true. The military spokesman said that the allegation had not been heard yet. Which means that we have not had a chance to investigate it. That makes it pretty one-sided, does it not?
It could be a rogue squad went crazy. Much more likely is that a few terrorists got their hands on some surplus cammies and a few AR-15s and tried to frame US forces. I'm not saying it was one or the other - simply that your single article is not proof of anything, let alone all the crazy bullshit you've been spouting.
So who's the real troll here?
5.56 != fragments
explosive charge within metal casing == fragments
Yes, infantry and tanks fight together. They mutually support each other and are very effective that way. You don't have many tank-on-tank battles nowadays - the Battle 73 Easting was the exception, not the rule.
They most effective way to fight is to have nearly everything in your arsenal pounding an objective at once. Think of it like layers on an onion. For example, you might first have the artillery (or NGFS), which gives way to fixed-wing CAS, then mortars, then helos, then tanks, then crew-served weapons, then individual weapons.
There are a million variations based on the objective and the resources availible. The real keys are deconflicting fires and managing the time-space aspects. You can't have fixed-wing CAS at the same time as your mortars, because the flight of their rounds is much more variable than artillery, but it is possible to deconflict arty and fixed-wing CAS for overlapping fires on the objective.
So, yes, we do use tanks and foot-moblie infantry together and we do train that way. It is a powerful combination and not going away anytime soon. Even when we were training to fight Ivan, the idea was the infantry was there to kill other infantry that might pose a risk to the tanks. The tanks did what they were best at - killing other tanks.
This is utter bullshit. I got all the same cable channels that you do. I got them when I was enlisted in the barracks and I could watch whatever the hell I wanted. I also had a normal Internet connection (again from Comcast). No one monitored shit. I know because I was comm then and I'm a comm officer now. If you think we have the resources to play big brother in garrison, you're wrong. Do outgoing emails get monitored when you are deployed? Of course, because INFOSEC is a huge and valid concern.
The reason you get put up in a hotel room is so they can get your ass on a bus at zero-dark-thirty to head over to the MEPS. They don't advise you about anything to do monitoring because there isn't any. Who would even monitor you? The recruiters? Yeah, four guys working out of a strip mall can monitor the TV and phones of twenty random assholes waiting to get their physicals. Get real. Or maybe you think the staff at the HoJo does it?
Maybe your recruiter lied to you or something. I neither know or care. What I do know and care about is that you are wrong.
Great platform... as for the safer part, well, I know quite a few Marines who would feel safer if they could learn the difference between a BMP and an AAV.
Whatever.
Really? Know a lot about close air support, do you? I'm pretty sure I do, since I've been a United States Marine for quite some time. And you are very, very wrong. Yes, the RAF may fly at that altitude and they may do it routinely. But if you think they are the only game in town - you're wrong. Your previous post was wrong and this post is wrong, too. CAS isn't defined by a made up altitude. It's defined by the proximity and coordination with a ground combat element. The USAF doesn't restrict the other services from doing anything. The DoD, the President, Congress, and the National Defense Act of 1947 are the main actors defining roles for the services. Marine Corps Aviation's main focus is on CAS and vertical envelopment. Do you think we call on the USAF or the RAF every time we need or want CAS? I could go on and on...
Again, I have no problem with you not knowing or even being critical (provided you make some attempt at being informed). It's when people start talking out their ass about things that they have no idea about that I get pissed. And I don't care if you got a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-buddy's-former-roomate who told you this crap. You are still wrong. Hell, I had a lady tell me a month ago that her brother (who she was very proud of) had enlisted in the Navy and flies the Stealth off aircraft carriers. That's about as wrong as it gets, but at least she wasn't trying to tell someone else that she knew more than them.
Yeah, you should stick with that for future discussion, as it shows both the quality of your character and the depth of your knowledge.
Wow, all of that is wrong. If you have no clue, that's fine - except you're trying to pretend like you do. Just stop.