Just so you know, the Stinger has a max range of 8,000 meters and a flight ceiling of 10,000 meters. I'd hardly consider that an effective defense against a bomber at 30,000 feet. And that's assuming that they've got the latest revision of the weapon system.
What we're experiencing is the beginning of what made the 1950's so "innocent".
The horror of WWII made anything that wasn't "wholesome" unthinkable for public consumption. Prepare yourselves for at least a limited resurgence of this.
I can't say I mind too much personally. I know where to find good entertainment (it's not on network television.)
This is exactly the reason that the judicial system was (originally) design to work outside of the effect of politics. (Realizing that it doesn't always work as intended.) Whether or not Joe Six-Pack knows right from wrong has nothing to do with whether our system of laws says something is right or wrong. The court doesn't answer to Joe, just itself. That's why the courts have grown to be the supposed champions of minorities and underdogs.
There is also the possiblity that the financial sector doesn't want one of the major players in a weakened market to be destabilized. I'm all for making them play fair, but not at the expense of the roof over my head.
OK, I'll give you that modern steel might hold a better edge, but get yourself a 36" x 2.5" blade and smack it against a damascus (or even spring steel) blade of equal size and see which fares better. Remember, sharp tends to mean brittle. A blade that cuts through anything doesn't do you much good if it turns to powder the first time it hits anything.
Well it seems to me that any nation (developed or not) should be able to produce a few people that can think. It is a bit telling that all those engineers and scientists had to drive so far south to find a job, though.
Well, normally depth charges were just activated by water pressure and dumped from a small ramp mounted to the deck of the ship...a magnetic depth charge would have blown its own ship to bits
More likely than not, the Marines entrusted to use said technology would be trained to use a few scripted sentences until lethal force has been determined to be unnecessary.
By the way:
If it's a US Marine and he's decided to shoot you, running only ensures that you die tired.:)
I realize you said _over_ 500 yards, but just to make your point even stronger:
A good Marine, shooting with the iron sights on an M-16 should be able to pick off individuals at 500 yards.
As a matter of fact we have to demonstrate that ability yearly to sustain our rifle qualification -- and you can certainly see individuals at 500 yards.
A sniper, with a scope and a much more powerful rifle, should be able to do the same at much greater than 800 yards - especially if he (no female snipers YET) is using the.50 caliber Barret sniper rifle.
I'd certainly give a clock cycle or two to a small piece of code intercepting my keypresses and randomly adding and subtracting a few milliseconds to or from each.
Even if it were 5,000,000 TB/sec, it wouldn't matter. High bandwidth data taps are not monitored in real time like a recording.
Signals Intelligence and Ground Electronic Warfare equipment that is set up to do an unmanned monitor generally scans pseudo-randomly, looking for interesting patterns. When something sufficiently interesting happens, the equipment will alert a human operator, who can investigate, and respond as needed (ie. give that pattern/transmission/etc a higher priority to be monitored.)
Since the US Air Force would undoubtedly be funding it they might prefer the line to be "Air Force!".
If coding for the US Marine Corps, (which would never happen, since they NEVER buy anything NEW) they'd want a healthy "Oorah!" or maybe just an "Errrr!"
The US Navy would probably ask for a "Go Navy!" - there is however a limited part of the US Navy who does use "Booyah!".
The US Coast Guard would simply request that the entire source code be submitted in bright orange.
I guess it really just depends on which command requests it.
How typical this is of M$. Take something that is useful and should have been done a while ago (changing the MBR)and then slip something nefarious in (GUID!) for the bargain.
{@?B£|FF even playing on the same field? The way I see this, this is a Constitutional issue.
Anonymous Political Speech (for example VOTING) is the MOST protected form of speech by the US Supreme Court. The Court has protected forums for speech on just their potential to be used for anonymous political speech.
Remember that the Amendment protecting free speech is the 1st, and was intentionally made so by the Founding Fathers because of their belief that all other rights are protected by the 1st.
Now consider the HUGE potential forum for anonymous politcal speech [APS] presented by P2P networks and file sharing.
Aside from the initial node that brings the file containing APS to the network, it would be almost impossible to know who originally sent it.
Set aside for a moment the fact that it would be easy to corrupt the message, co-opt the message etc. You could just as easily fake a newsletter.The bottom line is that a political message could be distributed anonymously to millions of people and be heard.
Compared to that, potential illegal uses become a minimal worry.
P2P is the ultimate extension of democracy. It allows content (speech) to be freely disseminated from person to person, with anonymity and no interference from interested parties.
Centralized content distribution is tantamount to Communism, allowing the interested parties to edit, skew, or delete content that does not serve their needs.
Finding P2P to be illegal would be disabling a very important forum for free political speech, and just plain Un-American.
I agree with most of your points. There is a definite need for a police force. My concern is that the aim of the police force is becoming to make sure there is a police force, rather than to protect and serve.
Also, when the risk of being caught is increased, casual crime will decrease. Serious (professional) criminals don't care what the chance of being caught is, they just charge more. This is what makes organized crime fruitful.
Does the law enforcement community have more interest in keping their own jobs than actually stopping crime? It would seem so. The manpower it will take to even give a cursory look at all that data after the computer has filtered it (and missed several million criminal transmissions - we know filtering doesn't work) is staggering.
There are, of course, those who believe that the sign of a mature technology is the emergence of the belief that aesthetics are as important as "what it can do".
I take it you're not one of these.
Slashdot Mirror
"True to form, AMD has released the new Athalon XP today"
I really hate when it gets spelled that way for some reason.
The flight ceiling is 10,000 FEET (3.046 kilometers or 3,046 Meters) according to fas.org
good catch, my error.
The flight ceiling for the weapon is 10,000 FEET and the bomber is at 30,000 (or higher) FEET.
Just so you know, the Stinger has a max range of 8,000 meters and a flight ceiling of 10,000 meters. I'd hardly consider that an effective defense against a bomber at 30,000 feet. And that's assuming that they've got the latest revision of the weapon system.
What we're experiencing is the beginning of what made the 1950's so "innocent".
The horror of WWII made anything that wasn't "wholesome" unthinkable for public consumption. Prepare yourselves for at least a limited resurgence of this.
I can't say I mind too much personally. I know where to find good entertainment (it's not on network television.)
This is exactly the reason that the judicial system was (originally) design to work outside of the effect of politics. (Realizing that it doesn't always work as intended.) Whether or not Joe Six-Pack knows right from wrong has nothing to do with whether our system of laws says something is right or wrong. The court doesn't answer to Joe, just itself. That's why the courts have grown to be the supposed champions of minorities and underdogs.
There is also the possiblity that the financial sector doesn't want one of the major players in a weakened market to be destabilized. I'm all for making them play fair, but not at the expense of the roof over my head.
Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment (passed in 1933)
OK, I'll give you that modern steel might hold a better edge, but get yourself a 36" x 2.5" blade and smack it against a damascus (or even spring steel) blade of equal size and see which fares better. Remember, sharp tends to mean brittle. A blade that cuts through anything doesn't do you much good if it turns to powder the first time it hits anything.
Well it seems to me that any nation (developed or not) should be able to produce a few people that can think. It is a bit telling that all those engineers and scientists had to drive so far south to find a job, though.
Well, normally depth charges were just activated by water pressure and dumped from a small ramp mounted to the deck of the ship...a magnetic depth charge would have blown its own ship to bits
More likely than not, the Marines entrusted to use said technology would be trained to use a few scripted sentences until lethal force has been determined to be unnecessary.
:)
By the way:
If it's a US Marine and he's decided to shoot you, running only ensures that you die tired.
Semper Fi.
I realize you said _over_ 500 yards, but just to make your point even stronger:
.50 caliber Barret sniper rifle.
A good Marine, shooting with the iron sights on an M-16 should be able to pick off individuals at 500 yards.
As a matter of fact we have to demonstrate that ability yearly to sustain our rifle qualification -- and you can certainly see individuals at 500 yards.
A sniper, with a scope and a much more powerful rifle, should be able to do the same at much greater than 800 yards - especially if he (no female snipers YET) is using the
Bio-metric THIS you "Big Brother" scumbags!
Signals Intelligence and Ground Electronic Warfare equipment that is set up to do an unmanned monitor generally scans pseudo-randomly, looking for interesting patterns. When something sufficiently interesting happens, the equipment will alert a human operator, who can investigate, and respond as needed (ie. give that pattern/transmission/etc a higher priority to be monitored.)
Well, depends who you're coding for.
The US Army would prefer a "Hooah!", but...
Since the US Air Force would undoubtedly be funding it they might prefer the line to be "Air Force!".
If coding for the US Marine Corps, (which would never happen, since they NEVER buy anything NEW) they'd want a healthy "Oorah!" or maybe just an "Errrr!"
The US Navy would probably ask for a "Go Navy!" - there is however a limited part of the US Navy who does use "Booyah!".
The US Coast Guard would simply request that the entire source code be submitted in bright orange.
I guess it really just depends on which command requests it.
How typical this is of M$. Take something that is useful and should have been done a while ago (changing the MBR)and then slip something nefarious in (GUID!) for the bargain.
{@?B£|FF even playing on the same field?
The way I see this, this is a Constitutional issue.
Anonymous Political Speech (for example VOTING) is the MOST protected form of speech by the US Supreme Court. The Court has protected forums for speech on just their potential to be used for anonymous political speech.
Remember that the Amendment protecting free speech is the 1st, and was intentionally made so by the Founding Fathers because of their belief that all other rights are protected by the 1st.
Now consider the HUGE potential forum for anonymous politcal speech [APS] presented by P2P networks and file sharing.
Aside from the initial node that brings the file containing APS to the network, it would be almost impossible to know who originally sent it.
Set aside for a moment the fact that it would be easy to corrupt the message, co-opt the message etc. You could just as easily fake a newsletter.The bottom line is that a political message could be distributed anonymously to millions of people and be heard.
Compared to that, potential illegal uses become a minimal worry.
Well, we could always "McCarthy" this debate.
P2P is the ultimate extension of democracy. It allows content (speech) to be freely disseminated from person to person, with anonymity and no interference from interested parties.
Centralized content distribution is tantamount to Communism, allowing the interested parties to edit, skew, or delete content that does not serve their needs.
Finding P2P to be illegal would be disabling a very important forum for free political speech, and just plain Un-American.
Thank You
I wonder if the have to get a new product activation code for each launch if they're replacing that many components....
I agree with most of your points. There is a definite need for a police force. My concern is that the aim of the police force is becoming to make sure there is a police force, rather than to protect and serve.
Also, when the risk of being caught is increased, casual crime will decrease. Serious (professional) criminals don't care what the chance of being caught is, they just charge more. This is what makes organized crime fruitful.
Does the law enforcement community have more interest in keping their own jobs than actually stopping crime?
It would seem so. The manpower it will take to even give a cursory look at all that data after the computer has filtered it (and missed several million criminal transmissions - we know filtering doesn't work) is staggering.
> The duplications and 'time-shifts' (read piracy)
'time-shifts' (read: found to be legal by the US Supreme Court in 1984)
1.) Initial hardware shortages
2.) Mediocre (at best) software
3.) Wedged between Nintendo and the Redmond collective.
I would love to see them survive this.
There are, of course, those who believe that the sign of a mature technology is the emergence of the belief that aesthetics are as important as "what it can do". I take it you're not one of these.