No. I am not embracing your definitions. *takes a nail gun and nails that point to the wall*
You can try to strawman me again, but you're going to have to rip everything to shit in the process which will make it a bit less credible every time you try it.
Allow me to make myself clear yet again.
BOTH genders care about their relationships with society and BOTH genders define that relationship in part by the actions they are expected to perform as part of that relationship.
However, their respective relationships are DIFFERENT. If one person wants one kind of relationship and another person wants a different type of relationship then they're both concerned with fucking relationships... they're just DIFFERENT relationships.
If the relationship I want to have with you is one of casual sex and the relationship you want from me is one of financial support then we both are interested in relationships. They're just different relationships.
Men genetically are predisposed to seek multiple partners and as much as possible minimize their commitment to each while maximizing their access to their reproductive functions. Why is this? Because men have the ability to fertilize several women every day and with some artificial insemination possibly hundreds of thousands of women... every day.
Women genetically are predisposed to seek both the absolute best genetic material she can find while also retaining someone or something willing to support her during pregnancy and then during the raising of the child. These people or entities do not need to be the same person. A one night stand with a movie star followed by marrying some fat little man is preferable from a genetic stand point to just letting the fat little man impregnate her. Or assuming you have comprehensive welfare, then that relationship with the fat man isn't even required. She can just have a collection of one night stands with men that are attractive but unwilling to commit and then have the government play the role of provider. There is a reason why single motherhood is almost directly proportional to welfare for mothers. Look it up. If you want to reduce the single motherhood thing... cut welfare for single mothers and they'll get into a relationship pretty quickly.
Point I am making is that every social interaction is a relationship. And the relationships men want and need are not the same ones that women want and need.
You could give women the same relationship men want and they'd be miserable because it isn't want they want.
The women aren't sick enough to call these women out. Really the ladies are dropping the ball in a big way. Part of accepting political responsibility is taking some responsibility.
Men police their radicals. We hunt them down and drive them out of the system or otherwise label them as the heretic unclean.
Women don't because culturally they're still in the same place they were before they got rights. When women didn't have political agency there was no need for them to police their own. Women were simply not permitted in politics or taken seriously in politics. Right or wrong they really couldn't do a whole lot.
Now that they have agency, it is incumbant on them to do the same thing men do which is police their own. Men can't shut down out of control women. We are as a gender culturally restrained from engaging women in an aggressive manner. Women however are not culturally restrained from going after either sex.
A relatively small number of women are feminists and very very few of them are the radical sort causing problems. Women need to make it clear that the radical feminists at the very least do not speak for all women. That is literally how the radical feminists represent themselves. And anyone that opposes them is labeled as a hater of women. Not only someone that disagrees but someone that is outright hateful and bigoted. And women in general permit this to happen by not confronting radical feminists.
That's about 550 for one quart and about 750 for 2 quarts.
All you need in that case is a flat bit of MDF or some other very smooth cheap wood. You could probably buy a sheet of the correct size for about 20 bucks. And then you just paint it and then either glue the board to a wall or hang it.
The serious screens of this nature can cost 5000 dollars easy. The clever move is to get one of the paint products specifically designed for this application and do it yourself.
Alternatively if you want to save even more money then you can get really good results by mixing a black matte paint with a metallic paint at a ratio of 1 to 3. This last method is moderately inferior to the specialty paint above but you can get about 2 quarts of this paint for about 30 dollars instead of 750. Any of the options beat the pants off the Black Diamond black screens because those things are just absurdly over priced.
Even so, you're going to probably want two screens. A black multi purpose screen for the day that will give you good contrast in a fully lit room. And then a conventional white screen for late at night if you want to get serious.
The black screens do look good if they're properly done. But under ideal circomstances a white screen will look better. It is just that the white screen ONLY looks good under ideal circomstances. That is if the room is totally dark then the white screen looks the best. But if there is any light in the room at all, you're going to want a darker screen.
Gray screens are okay in dimly lit rooms. Think candle light. If there is more light then that, then you need a black screen. And again, the black screens look pretty good in all situations. If I could only have one screen, I'd have a black one. Just less of a hassle. But white screens are really cheap. You can get one for like 50 dollars that is a proper screen with the projection cloth that is specifically for projection screens. So it isn't a big deal.
The thing to remember with projection screens is that there is no reason why it couldn't last for a really long time. TVs last so long and no more because the technology advances. But the screens don't really change. A screen from decades ago would work as well today as it did then. Only thing you have to worry about is it getting dirty or something. Which is easily dealt with by just dusting the damn thing every so often. They don't get dusty quickly because they're vertical. But they do get dusty eventually. Clean them off a bit every six months and they'll last about as long as you will.
I actually understand all that quite clearly. Taking a class isn't going to help you though. But whatever. If you want to piss your money away on a guru that will take your money then have at it.
Being different isn't anyone's fault or responsibility.
Am quite different from most people. Trust me, as someone might be disadvantaged at understanding someone else, those other people are equally going to have a hard time understanding that other person.
The difference is that there are more of those other people and they probably have more power, money, and social status. Okay... but then you're just whining about being a minority without the resources of the majority.
Get over yourself. I say this with love. The world isn't going to care about you. You toughen up or die. Again, I am myself neuro atypical. Regular humans have a very hard time understanding me. And I frequently find the behavior of those humans to be either stupid or pathetic. The petty attempts to manipulate are the most disgraceful.
I can't tell you how many times these fucking monkeys have knuckled dragged around me, almost literally beat their hairy chests, and then made some stupid noises that had no material significance rather then say "look at me, I am awesome!"...
I am not a victim because of my difference. I am merely different. I do not laugh at the same things you laugh at. I do not cry at the same things. I do not become offended by the same things. I do not respond to the same body language.
I am not a victim. I am a different breed of human. And I have nothing to prove to the other humans. I do not want their pity, their sympathy, and have no great interest in their understanding.
The path to freedom and independence is won through strength not weakness. You whine about how the world doesn't care about you and the world will unzip its fly and urinate in your gaping mouth.
Don't be that guy. Fix your life. Find a away to thrive. Or die.
It is just the typical activist syndrome. They get what they want then have to up what they're asking for until people say no or they get resistance. Then they can fight against that.
Take the environmental groups. If we did everything they asked for... literally everything... killed 90 percent of the human population in some cases... whatever... just did everything they wanted. Would they be happy or would they come back the next day with something new that was perfectly calculated to be something people didn't want to give them. Maybe total dictatorial rule of everything? Say no and you hate the earth. I am not just picking on environmentalists. ALL the activist groups have elements of this in them. And the feminists are the same way.
Take PETA as another fun example. They eventually started demanding that people kill their house pets and they were claiming that you are abusing your pet dog or cat simply by having them as a pet. Why? Because they're looking for you to say no. They're not pushing for rights or the cause but rather the legitimacy of the fight. They want to fight.
So many of these people are like crazy civil war reenactors... only they're reenacting the 60s or something. They start practicing their lingo, they get the clothes, the signs, they get the f'ing hacky sacks out, the stupid drums come out... and boom... 60s reenactment.
Look, people can do whatever they want with their free time, but I take these people about as seriously as people that list "jedi" under religion. That's super... no one should care.
Except for men define their value to the community and their social group by what they can do for that group. Which is their relationship.
Look at male versus female fantasy. That is what men read when they want to fantasize and what women read when they want to fantasize. Are you suggesting that in male fantasy they don't have relationships? The whole story is a relationship.
Lets take the spy story. You have the lone rogue trained to kill on a government expense account. He's handsome, charismatic, and gets what he wants. The fantasy is not to be a soulless killing machine with no principles. The point is to be a very high status agent of his society. It is sort of patriotic... king and country and all that. And part of the relationship is that females see this male as a high status desirable male that they want to sleep with... and they do... very frequently.
Then take the female fantasy which almost always follows the handsome prince trope. You have this girl or young woman that isn't especially interesting. She might be pretty but she's kept intentionally bland so that the female reader can wear the protagonist like a skin. That isn't a slight by the way, you find the same thing in male dominated video games. Anyway, the blank slate female character it generally whisked off her feet by the alpha male that is always rich, powerful, and very happy to shower her in absurd luxury and social status.
Both men and women take relationships seriously. It is just that they seek different relationships. Men seek power and status because that is the more reliable way for men to get women.
Women conversely seek powerful and high status males because that is the most reliable way for them to secure a place for themselves in society. At least historically... today that might not be the case... however it is likely genetic at this point.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that it is absurd to blame modern tech companies and universities for not having equal numbers of women in the field when they're not especially interested in it.
Here is probably the best way to get more women in tech... "have the men in tech work out more."... that literally would probably be the most effective means of getting from point A to point B.
Also, fyi... when men were asked if they felt pressured into sex by women, roughly the same number of men answered yes to that as women. So you have no practical difference in gender. The stats only look different because they arbitarily treat "made to penetrate" differently then "allowed to be penetrated"... which basically just boiled down to them saying "men can't be raped because after all they really wanted to have sex even if they said they didn't." Which is the sort of insane sexist crap one can expect from that source you're citing.
Seriously... try to make these arguments using any kind of evidence that didn't wilt into nothing the instant it was subjected to any scrutiny at all.
This whole "listen and believe" campaign is an attack on BASIC judicial due process. Everyone has rights and the burden of proof is always on the accuser. This is not something new for women or rape. If one guy says another guy stole his bicycle, then he has to prove that. If one person is thought to have murdered another person... the person being accused as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This of course is precisely the same for rape. You accuse a person of rape that person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Look at all these bogus rape accusations that have blown up in your face destroying the credibility of REAL rape cases because everyone is so jaded by these lies that they don't know what to believe anymore.
If you really care about women's rights and protecting rape victims. Stop making frivolous rape claims. You are crying wolf.
And when the real rapes happen... everyone is going to doubt those women more then they were doubted before because of people like you. Stop it. You are hurting women and making a fool of your movement.
You do realize that those stats evaporated like a snow cone in a blast furnace right? There is zero academic rigor behind any of those claims.
If you want to engage in a rational discussion on the issue, then I'm more then happy to oblige. However, if you're going to make absurd claims that can't be backed up then it is my responsibility to challenge you to back it up or concede the point.
That is the only way to keep insane theories from becoming accepted. Your argument has about as much behind it as big foot. Just saying.
You can't offer education to a single gender intentionally without opening yourself up to discrimination lawsuits.
This push to get girls in tech should be aimed at the real problem which is the culture of female girls and females in general that don't take tech seriously in the first place.
They're not being excluded... walk amongst the nerds and ask them if they hate women... they don't. But the female of the species doesn't see tech as cool... unless there is a lot of money. And so they avoid it.
Really, the only reason people are pushing for girls in tech is because of the money. If tech didn't make big money they'd have no interest in it. There are a lot of things men do more then women that women have no interest in increasing their representation in because there is no money.
Which means this push for women in tech is mostly the same greedy shit we've come to expect from the usual suspects.
... without the damn water soluble contacts. I buy one, am very happy with it... then a bit of water gets between the keys... and dead.
I'm sure other people would prefer other keyboards but I like that one. It is great for putting in my lap and typing from there which is literally where I do 98 percent of my typing. I cross my legs in my chair, then put the keyboard in my lap... and type.:)
Inputs are only limited because you need to plug them into it. Once you do, it is not limited. It is true that when when you do this it becomes less mobile but it is still more mobile then anything else with comparable capability.
As to tiny screens... only an issue if you have a hard time seeing what is on the screen. I noticed a lot of people don't get glasses that really should have them. I assume it is vanity or something. In any case, I can see just fine.
As to remote desktops, try TeamViewer or RealVNC. They both work quite well on android. Many of the remote apps are shit. I grant you that. But those are two of the good ones.
As to huge backpacks, it isn't huge. And really are you going to claim that a few things that could easily fit into a woman's purse are going to require a lot space? Total weight of my smartphone plus accessories is radically lower then even a single netbook.
As to this notion that we just need to rewrite every single program for the mobile device... it won't happen. You're going to get shit programs that are inferior on the mobile because even the programmers don't take the mobile seriously.
In the minds of one and all, serious business is what happens on the desktop and the mobile is looneytoons bullshit. And that is reflected in the software.
I can sit down somewhere, prop my phone up so I can see it, and then whip out an accessory if it helps... and use it. I honestly don't sit any closer to the screen then I do when I use a laptop usually. I really have no difficulty seeing things. What kills you on a tiny screen like that is when you have to sacrifice screen space for a virtual keyboard. Then you literally can't see what is going on because the fucking virtual keyboard is in the way half the time. So a cheap 10 dollar bluetooth keyboard... and no more worries.
I have a backpack that can carry a lot of stuff in it. I often have a gamepad in it along with an OTG cable. I also have a little bluetooth keyboard. I also have a little backup battery pack that can give my phone enough power to be in a high state of use all day without running out of power.
As to turning the phone into something it is not... hmmm... I think you don't know what the modern smart phone actually is... it is already a small computer. I can plug a mouse or use a bluetooth mouse with any current android phone and the instant it connects you get a cursor on the phone. Now is that ideal? Debatable. I know some people have shitty eyes and can't see small details very well but I my eyes aren't garbage. I can see details on that little screen just fine. Keep in mind, most phones at 720p or 1080p. That is a lot of detail on those screens. If you can resolve it with your eyes then there isn't a problem. All you do is sit quite a bit closer to the screen. Instead of the screen being 2 or 3 feet from your face it is about one foot.
As to remoting into computers using your phone. I do it all the time. It works great. That is actually how I check my email. I don't have a mail app running on my phone. Instead, I remote into my home computer, look at the mail program, and use that. it works fine.
The only thing that bothers me is that software keyboards are shit. I type very quickly and typing with my thumbs on those screens is an exercise in frustration. It takes a lot longer and is much less accurate.
Here you'll say "why not just bring around a little laptop". Because I like having all these capabilities in a device that can be in my pocket.
You think everything should have an interface expressly designed for that device. I don't disagree with you. I am not saying you should use a program that has an awkward interface for that device. What I am saying is that if you WANT to run that program you should be able to do it.
If I could run just about any windows program on my phone that would be pretty damn cool. One of the things that really bothers me about android is that there are not a lot of good text to speech systems. There are a LOT of them for the PC. Everyone is so impressed with google Now... but google now is a joke compared to similar products on the PC. The phone is perfect for a speech recognition interface and yet all of them are far behind what you find on the PC. The only reason no one uses that on the PC is that keyboards and mice are even better in that context. And other issue is dictating webpages or documents. Lets say you're going on your morning run or you are going to work or you're on your coffee break or something. What if you could put your phone in your pocket and have it text to speech articles for you.
Yes, I know the platform does have programs that do that... they're just shit. The ones on the desktop are so much better. I want access to quality programs on my mobile device. The mobile device has shit programs. Android, iOS, whatever. they're all shit.
As to the US knocking down enemy sats, I was more talking about other countries knocking down US sats. But flipping things around... we might just use the rail guns to pop hunter-killers into orbit. But yeah, we can of course kill enemy sats.
The chinese recently also experimented with using lasers to drop enemy sats or just as bad... blind them. You shine lasers into the optics of the enemy sat and burn them out.
As to MIRVs not tracking, there is nothing about the technology that prevents them from doing that besides the fact that they're not currently programmed to do it. Fit them with a two way radio to synchronize targeting information and give them a software upgrade. Done.
As to MIRV targeting, you're assuming the ICBM itself couldn't have targeting equipment on it. The ICBM does roughly come down over the target area. Have it be fitted with survey package that can locate the current position of the enemy fleet. All you'd need then was the initial position and heading of the enemy fleet. Target roughly in the vicinity of where you think it will be... the carriers don't go fast enough to be that far away from that position by the time the ICBM hits apogee. Break apart the MIRVs shortly after apogee and then have them all talk to each other as they're coming in. The ocean is a great place to target things because it is a very simplistic backdrop especially if you are targeting surface ships. There is going to be water and ships. There shouldn't be anything that looks like the target fleet within the engagement zone that isn't the fleet. Coordinate the current location and heading of the enemy fleet and then tell all the MIRVs to drop on it. You're treating this like it is impossible. It seems quite practical with current technology to accomplish all these things.
As to what triggers a MAD response. Are you telling me that you'd go to full blown MAD simply because I destroyed your carrier fleet? You say "when one flies they all fly" but why? You should know by looking at the trajectory of the ICBM that is not targeting your cities. And after all, I'd only be launching one... not hundreds. You'd cause an engagement that would end your civilization over that? Foolish. If anyone should not have access to the nuclear stockpiles it is you. You are the one saying he would launch hundreds of missiles without provocation. That is foolish.
As to radar and ABM systems. ICBMs are by nature very predictable in their trajectory once you know what it is... they don't deviate. The MIRVs do jink around but the ICBM itself does not. Programming in where the enemy ICBM will be into an intercepting missile does not require a sensor package on the ABM system. It merely needs to follow the path that was programmed into it on launch and detonate at the pre programmed moment. There is nothing the enemy ICBM can do that will change anything unless it behaves in a way that current ICBMs do not. For example, the ICBM could go through a burn phase to make it appear like they were going through a standard parabolic target and then stop or burn longer. This would make their actual targets difficult to predict but it would also be very inefficient. That said, nothing is more inefficient then a strike that does not hit. So there is an argument for them doing things like that. But current ABM systems do not need to do that since all the ICBMs are quite predictable as to their destinations shortly after launch.
As to an ABM system needing to maneuver to intercept... that presumes that the ICBM is not predictable in its trajectory or that your original targeting information was inaccurate and needs to be refined. I would counter that ICBMs are very predictable and if you use a nuke to try and kill the enemy ICBM you don't need to be that accurate. Especially if you are doing a close intercept. Let us say we are blowing up the enemy warheads about 200 miles from their target somewhere in the upper atmosphere. Draw a straight line from the launch site to the target... that is going to be the direction of attack. A
... you do realize we're talking about a court of law, right? You don't think emails are going to be relevant in a court trial? Really?
Everything is going to be relevant in a court trial. Character witnesses are going to happen. Both sides are going to bring in expert witnesses. All sorts of otherwise irrelevant information is going to be subpoenaed.
And refusal to comply with a court order is going to be a big problem for the scientists because they have previously been very cagey about sharing some things.
You go to trial and you won't be able to stop it. You resist and you could be held in contempt of court or obstruction of justice or something.
As to lost passwords, one can assume that any such system grants passive root access to anyone that has physical possession of the system. My own servers for example have no passwords for local access. It is only remote access that requires passwords. I forget my passwords all the time... I just reset them. No big deal.
As to backups... back up your data. Why is this so hard? I have an old computer that sits in my closet. It is slow but it draws very little power and has a lot of connections for harddrives. It is my personal file server. I believe it has 10 hard drives in it. And each of those is synced to another on a bit by bit level. I don't think it is technically raid 1 but it is effectively the same thing. Everything is backed up to that system and when one of the drives goes sour, it isn't a big deal to swap it out for another. The cost of all that was just about zero considering that all the parts are surplus computer parts that otherwise would have been thrown away. My only real expense is electricity. Which is negated to a large extent by the fact that most of the enemy is emitted as heat and that heat moderately warms my home and that means my heater kicks on slightly less often. And that means a portion of the energy spent on that machine is actually free. Still... even without that, the unit draws very little power. The computer spins down and turns off drives that aren't used for 10 minutes.
As to why people go with cloud services... because they're lazy.
As to not knowing how to run real backups. I am admin and have run my own backups on my own systems since long before the cloud ever existed. I have never lost data on any system I was responsible for maintaining. Ever.
Why? I back things up in a minimum of 3 places when the data is important. And a minimum of two places when it isn't.
I also am a big fan of the GFS system because it is very simple and very effective.
On one of my systems a script runs every night, it updates a Zip archive of a database. That is effectively one backup in itself as it is on a different drive within that server.
Then that Zip archive is renamed to the current day and pushed to a different server. A total of 7 days of backups are maintained on that system. They're Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Every Saturday night, a version is pushed to a third system. This system maintains a copy for every Saturday in a month. I might change it so it has a copy of every Saturday in a year but I on the fence about that. I don't really see the point.
Then on the first day of every month another copy is pushed to a forth system and that system maintains a copy of the database as of the first of the month for an entire year.
What is the point of all this? Fraud, data corruption, backups. Lots of reasons. Employees at that company can enter bogus information into the database to steal from the company and by maintaining literal copies of the database through time we can figure out when it started and to what extent it was done. Here you'll say "but if your database is set up this way"... which ignores that the employees are not stupid and are quite capable of subverting quite a bit of the security policy if they choose. A flaw in that database perhaps but that is what the company uses and I had no say in that. My job is maintaining the system. And I do that.
I do agree that most backup programs are crap. I've used a lot of them and the ones that cost 500 or 1000 dollars are often a total waste of money.
The script that does that GFS backup took me a couple hours to write from scratch and so far is the best system I've seen that doesn't do continuous live backups. I've even built little subroutines into it so that it will text message me when it has a problem by sending an email at my provider's email to text message portal. It is just such a nice little script.
The cloud WAS a nice idea. But frankly the NSA and US government in general has made it clear that it is a liability and people should really just stop being such lazy assholes.
Hmmm... Airplanes defend by attacking. That is really all they do from a military stand point. They just attack.
If I can do something that ensures your carrier will not survive, it might not matter if your planes can use their last bit of fuel to kill my weapons platform in retaliation. My platform is probably a lot cheaper then your carrier. I might be very happy to exchange such platforms 1 for 1 with your carriers.
The great strength of the carrier is to be able to project very accurate fire power at very long ranges without exposing itself to counter fire. Nimitz class carriers are supposed to go through battles without a scratch. What if that changed? What if instead of getting a scratch they had to expose themselves to real counter fire simply to deploy their aircraft? Carriers can't take hits.
For one, they're not really armored. For another they're really big targets.
I don't know how you'd maintain their utility while negating their venerability. But that is going to be an increasing concern for the US Navy.
I hear you. But that is politics. If you didn't want this to be a political fight then you shouldn't have made it political.
You did.
The Rubicon has been crossed. The die was cast. And now you have to deal with the consequences of doing that.
The price is that we're not talking about science. It is just another political debate like abortion or gun control. And expecting it to be anything else when both sides have committed to a political fight is at best ignorant.
If you want it to go back to a scientific discussion... which is my wish by the way... then the politics have to be put away. That is going to require a big gesture from all sides for that to happen as well as some very serious vows not to stab each other in the back down the line or immediately shift back into political mode the instant they feel they have an advantage.
If that can happen, then this can be about science again.
Absent that, it is just politics. Period. Science doesn't come into it at all.
You're upping the bid to lawsuits. You must realize that a the court process can be a painful and expensive procedure even for the innocent.
Consider that these same scientists could be sucked into serial lawsuits regarding undisclosed emails, methodology of data filtration/smoothing, disclosure of raw unmodified data which in some cases doesn't exist anymore, detailed explanations of climate models, etc.
Look... you really don't want to open this book. The legal system especially in the US has been successfully used as a bludgeon against people for over a generation. You open this door and lawyers are going to be knocking on the doors of both sides begging them to let their law firm represent them in one lawsuit or another.
Turn on American TV and you'll see all sorts of ads for various lawyers... they say "SUE YOUR BOSS!"... they'll say "were you injured EVER, sue the other guy! FUCK HIM!" They'll say, did you ever use this product? Call us so we can send you a check for 2 dollars, your share of a class action lawsuit that netted our firm a hundred million dollars!" They'll say "Are you the member of any politically advantageous minority? Black, Hispanic, female, gay, transgender? Call us and we'll help you sue people for being bigots!"
And some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to bring the trial lawyers into this shit storm? Okay. *gets more popcorn*
As to the context, I am referring to a power capable of challenging a US carrier fleet which excludes any little country.
We're talking about first rate military powers only. Which means powers that design and deploy first rate hardware.
Whether the Russians qualify for that at this point is debatable but the Chinese appear to be doing pretty well these days.
I'm not worried about Iran or Argentina or anything in europe including all of europe combined. There really isn't any hegemonic challenger to the US besides China. Russia is out there playing games but they have an economy smaller than France with territorial obligations and problems that France does not have. I am of course taking into consideration the decline in Russia's economy because of the oil slump. If oil recover they could just about surpass Germany but it isn't in the same class.
Russia tries to mask that issue by spending a large portion of their budget on the military but it isn't enough. They are a credible arms manufacturer but that is about it.
As to satellites, their primary defense and cost is simply launching them into space in the first place. Using conventional technology, every intercept would cost an orbit capable rocket. To knock down the GPS system for example you'd need to drop about six to ten of those sats to have any impact. That is more then Iran is going to be able to pull off. Russia might be able to do that but it would be a significant investment on their part.
And that would just be the GPS system. There are several types of spy sats the US uses. Dropping all the relevant ones in a conflict would not be easy. And you're assuming that all the sats are known. It is possible that there are some sats that get listed as "broken" but are actually just going dark. Military people are by nature paranoid. And you really don't know what they did to protect their various missions.
As to nuking a fleet, the MIRVs independently track targets and can retarget to some extent. I don't see why you couldn't have the MIRVs link to a central targeting system and be retargeted to land where the fleet currently is at that moment. All the ICBM really has to do is get the MIRVs close to where the target was at launch. The fleets aren't that fast. Assuming 30 or 40 miles per hour... how far are they doing to travel in 15 to 30 to 60 minutes? An MIRV can be tasked with hitting targets that far away from target of the ICBM itself. Just have the MIRVs release from the ICBM at apogee, and uplink to the targeting computer, and then home in using a cluster pattern on the enemy fleet. You can even have some of the MIRVs do different things such as electronic warfare etc. The Peacekeeper can carry 10 MIRVs.
Chances are you'd have a hard time stopping even one ICBM much less 50. That would be 500 MIRVs... any one of which would be able to obliterate a carrier fleet.
Furthermore, if I nuked a carrier fleet would you respond by going to Defcon 1? If I hit no population centers and merely killed your carrier group... would you go to full blown MAD nuclear war? I think not. Which means it is a viable tactical option since it does not trigger a doomsday scenario. It is dancing on the edge of Armageddon but it seems to just dance on that edge... not cross it.
As to why the Russians use a nuclear missile to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky... because when they built it they didn't think they could hit the missile directly. So they needed an explosion large and powerful enough to ensure a kill despite not getting especially close to the ICBM. Consult the Russia design. It is an old one but it seems effective.
The US is developing a more elegant system that simply kills the enemy ICBM with kinetic force. But the problem with elegance is that it requires everything work just "so". An advantage of brutality is that it doesn't especially matter. So anyway, the Russians and chinese are upgrading their ICBMs to break apart and kick out a lot of electronic warfare so that a kinetic hunter killer will waste
Slashdot Mirror
No. I am not embracing your definitions. *takes a nail gun and nails that point to the wall*
You can try to strawman me again, but you're going to have to rip everything to shit in the process which will make it a bit less credible every time you try it.
Allow me to make myself clear yet again.
BOTH genders care about their relationships with society and BOTH genders define that relationship in part by the actions they are expected to perform as part of that relationship.
However, their respective relationships are DIFFERENT. If one person wants one kind of relationship and another person wants a different type of relationship then they're both concerned with fucking relationships... they're just DIFFERENT relationships.
If the relationship I want to have with you is one of casual sex and the relationship you want from me is one of financial support then we both are interested in relationships. They're just different relationships.
Men genetically are predisposed to seek multiple partners and as much as possible minimize their commitment to each while maximizing their access to their reproductive functions. Why is this? Because men have the ability to fertilize several women every day and with some artificial insemination possibly hundreds of thousands of women... every day.
Women genetically are predisposed to seek both the absolute best genetic material she can find while also retaining someone or something willing to support her during pregnancy and then during the raising of the child. These people or entities do not need to be the same person. A one night stand with a movie star followed by marrying some fat little man is preferable from a genetic stand point to just letting the fat little man impregnate her. Or assuming you have comprehensive welfare, then that relationship with the fat man isn't even required. She can just have a collection of one night stands with men that are attractive but unwilling to commit and then have the government play the role of provider. There is a reason why single motherhood is almost directly proportional to welfare for mothers. Look it up. If you want to reduce the single motherhood thing... cut welfare for single mothers and they'll get into a relationship pretty quickly.
Point I am making is that every social interaction is a relationship. And the relationships men want and need are not the same ones that women want and need.
You could give women the same relationship men want and they'd be miserable because it isn't want they want.
The women aren't sick enough to call these women out. Really the ladies are dropping the ball in a big way. Part of accepting political responsibility is taking some responsibility.
Men police their radicals. We hunt them down and drive them out of the system or otherwise label them as the heretic unclean.
Women don't because culturally they're still in the same place they were before they got rights. When women didn't have political agency there was no need for them to police their own. Women were simply not permitted in politics or taken seriously in politics. Right or wrong they really couldn't do a whole lot.
Now that they have agency, it is incumbant on them to do the same thing men do which is police their own. Men can't shut down out of control women. We are as a gender culturally restrained from engaging women in an aggressive manner. Women however are not culturally restrained from going after either sex.
A relatively small number of women are feminists and very very few of them are the radical sort causing problems. Women need to make it clear that the radical feminists at the very least do not speak for all women. That is literally how the radical feminists represent themselves. And anyone that opposes them is labeled as a hater of women. Not only someone that disagrees but someone that is outright hateful and bigoted. And women in general permit this to happen by not confronting radical feminists.
What they really want is for there to be a "women's CS" class that is taught by their little coven.
sure...
http://www.digital4kcrystalony...
That's about 550 for one quart and about 750 for 2 quarts.
All you need in that case is a flat bit of MDF or some other very smooth cheap wood. You could probably buy a sheet of the correct size for about 20 bucks. And then you just paint it and then either glue the board to a wall or hang it.
The serious screens of this nature can cost 5000 dollars easy. The clever move is to get one of the paint products specifically designed for this application and do it yourself.
Alternatively if you want to save even more money then you can get really good results by mixing a black matte paint with a metallic paint at a ratio of 1 to 3. This last method is moderately inferior to the specialty paint above but you can get about 2 quarts of this paint for about 30 dollars instead of 750. Any of the options beat the pants off the Black Diamond black screens because those things are just absurdly over priced.
Even so, you're going to probably want two screens. A black multi purpose screen for the day that will give you good contrast in a fully lit room. And then a conventional white screen for late at night if you want to get serious.
The black screens do look good if they're properly done. But under ideal circomstances a white screen will look better. It is just that the white screen ONLY looks good under ideal circomstances. That is if the room is totally dark then the white screen looks the best. But if there is any light in the room at all, you're going to want a darker screen.
Gray screens are okay in dimly lit rooms. Think candle light. If there is more light then that, then you need a black screen. And again, the black screens look pretty good in all situations. If I could only have one screen, I'd have a black one. Just less of a hassle. But white screens are really cheap. You can get one for like 50 dollars that is a proper screen with the projection cloth that is specifically for projection screens. So it isn't a big deal.
The thing to remember with projection screens is that there is no reason why it couldn't last for a really long time. TVs last so long and no more because the technology advances. But the screens don't really change. A screen from decades ago would work as well today as it did then. Only thing you have to worry about is it getting dirty or something. Which is easily dealt with by just dusting the damn thing every so often. They don't get dusty quickly because they're vertical. But they do get dusty eventually. Clean them off a bit every six months and they'll last about as long as you will.
I actually understand all that quite clearly. Taking a class isn't going to help you though. But whatever. If you want to piss your money away on a guru that will take your money then have at it.
Next issue.
Being different isn't anyone's fault or responsibility.
Am quite different from most people. Trust me, as someone might be disadvantaged at understanding someone else, those other people are equally going to have a hard time understanding that other person.
The difference is that there are more of those other people and they probably have more power, money, and social status. Okay... but then you're just whining about being a minority without the resources of the majority.
Get over yourself. I say this with love. The world isn't going to care about you. You toughen up or die. Again, I am myself neuro atypical. Regular humans have a very hard time understanding me. And I frequently find the behavior of those humans to be either stupid or pathetic. The petty attempts to manipulate are the most disgraceful.
I can't tell you how many times these fucking monkeys have knuckled dragged around me, almost literally beat their hairy chests, and then made some stupid noises that had no material significance rather then say "look at me, I am awesome!"...
I am not a victim because of my difference. I am merely different. I do not laugh at the same things you laugh at. I do not cry at the same things. I do not become offended by the same things. I do not respond to the same body language.
I am not a victim. I am a different breed of human. And I have nothing to prove to the other humans. I do not want their pity, their sympathy, and have no great interest in their understanding.
The path to freedom and independence is won through strength not weakness. You whine about how the world doesn't care about you and the world will unzip its fly and urinate in your gaping mouth.
Don't be that guy. Fix your life. Find a away to thrive. Or die.
Get a friend and accept that you're different. There is nothing wrong with being different.
It is just the typical activist syndrome. They get what they want then have to up what they're asking for until people say no or they get resistance. Then they can fight against that.
Take the environmental groups. If we did everything they asked for... literally everything... killed 90 percent of the human population in some cases... whatever... just did everything they wanted. Would they be happy or would they come back the next day with something new that was perfectly calculated to be something people didn't want to give them. Maybe total dictatorial rule of everything? Say no and you hate the earth. I am not just picking on environmentalists. ALL the activist groups have elements of this in them. And the feminists are the same way.
Take PETA as another fun example. They eventually started demanding that people kill their house pets and they were claiming that you are abusing your pet dog or cat simply by having them as a pet. Why? Because they're looking for you to say no. They're not pushing for rights or the cause but rather the legitimacy of the fight. They want to fight.
So many of these people are like crazy civil war reenactors... only they're reenacting the 60s or something. They start practicing their lingo, they get the clothes, the signs, they get the f'ing hacky sacks out, the stupid drums come out... and boom... 60s reenactment.
Look, people can do whatever they want with their free time, but I take these people about as seriously as people that list "jedi" under religion. That's super... no one should care.
Except for men define their value to the community and their social group by what they can do for that group. Which is their relationship.
Look at male versus female fantasy. That is what men read when they want to fantasize and what women read when they want to fantasize. Are you suggesting that in male fantasy they don't have relationships? The whole story is a relationship.
Lets take the spy story. You have the lone rogue trained to kill on a government expense account. He's handsome, charismatic, and gets what he wants. The fantasy is not to be a soulless killing machine with no principles. The point is to be a very high status agent of his society. It is sort of patriotic... king and country and all that. And part of the relationship is that females see this male as a high status desirable male that they want to sleep with... and they do... very frequently.
Then take the female fantasy which almost always follows the handsome prince trope. You have this girl or young woman that isn't especially interesting. She might be pretty but she's kept intentionally bland so that the female reader can wear the protagonist like a skin. That isn't a slight by the way, you find the same thing in male dominated video games. Anyway, the blank slate female character it generally whisked off her feet by the alpha male that is always rich, powerful, and very happy to shower her in absurd luxury and social status.
Both men and women take relationships seriously. It is just that they seek different relationships. Men seek power and status because that is the more reliable way for men to get women.
Women conversely seek powerful and high status males because that is the most reliable way for them to secure a place for themselves in society. At least historically... today that might not be the case... however it is likely genetic at this point.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that it is absurd to blame modern tech companies and universities for not having equal numbers of women in the field when they're not especially interested in it.
Here is probably the best way to get more women in tech... "have the men in tech work out more."... that literally would probably be the most effective means of getting from point A to point B.
Also, fyi... when men were asked if they felt pressured into sex by women, roughly the same number of men answered yes to that as women. So you have no practical difference in gender. The stats only look different because they arbitarily treat "made to penetrate" differently then "allowed to be penetrated"... which basically just boiled down to them saying "men can't be raped because after all they really wanted to have sex even if they said they didn't." Which is the sort of insane sexist crap one can expect from that source you're citing.
Seriously... try to make these arguments using any kind of evidence that didn't wilt into nothing the instant it was subjected to any scrutiny at all.
This whole "listen and believe" campaign is an attack on BASIC judicial due process. Everyone has rights and the burden of proof is always on the accuser. This is not something new for women or rape. If one guy says another guy stole his bicycle, then he has to prove that. If one person is thought to have murdered another person... the person being accused as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This of course is precisely the same for rape. You accuse a person of rape that person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Look at all these bogus rape accusations that have blown up in your face destroying the credibility of REAL rape cases because everyone is so jaded by these lies that they don't know what to believe anymore.
If you really care about women's rights and protecting rape victims. Stop making frivolous rape claims. You are crying wolf.
And when the real rapes happen... everyone is going to doubt those women more then they were doubted before because of people like you. Stop it. You are hurting women and making a fool of your movement.
Be rational or be judged as irrational.
So you're claiming 1 in 3 men rape women?
You do realize that those stats evaporated like a snow cone in a blast furnace right? There is zero academic rigor behind any of those claims.
If you want to engage in a rational discussion on the issue, then I'm more then happy to oblige. However, if you're going to make absurd claims that can't be backed up then it is my responsibility to challenge you to back it up or concede the point.
That is the only way to keep insane theories from becoming accepted. Your argument has about as much behind it as big foot. Just saying.
You can buy black projector screens around 100" for about 500 dollars or so. And that means you can watch your projector with the lights on.
You can't offer education to a single gender intentionally without opening yourself up to discrimination lawsuits.
This push to get girls in tech should be aimed at the real problem which is the culture of female girls and females in general that don't take tech seriously in the first place.
They're not being excluded... walk amongst the nerds and ask them if they hate women... they don't. But the female of the species doesn't see tech as cool... unless there is a lot of money. And so they avoid it.
Really, the only reason people are pushing for girls in tech is because of the money. If tech didn't make big money they'd have no interest in it. There are a lot of things men do more then women that women have no interest in increasing their representation in because there is no money.
Which means this push for women in tech is mostly the same greedy shit we've come to expect from the usual suspects.
... without the damn water soluble contacts. I buy one, am very happy with it... then a bit of water gets between the keys... and dead.
I'm sure other people would prefer other keyboards but I like that one. It is great for putting in my lap and typing from there which is literally where I do 98 percent of my typing. I cross my legs in my chair, then put the keyboard in my lap... and type. :)
All you're saying is that naval personnel must be mindful of positioning when engaging targets.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
Inputs are only limited because you need to plug them into it. Once you do, it is not limited. It is true that when when you do this it becomes less mobile but it is still more mobile then anything else with comparable capability.
As to tiny screens... only an issue if you have a hard time seeing what is on the screen. I noticed a lot of people don't get glasses that really should have them. I assume it is vanity or something. In any case, I can see just fine.
As to remote desktops, try TeamViewer or RealVNC. They both work quite well on android. Many of the remote apps are shit. I grant you that. But those are two of the good ones.
As to huge backpacks, it isn't huge. And really are you going to claim that a few things that could easily fit into a woman's purse are going to require a lot space? Total weight of my smartphone plus accessories is radically lower then even a single netbook.
As to this notion that we just need to rewrite every single program for the mobile device... it won't happen. You're going to get shit programs that are inferior on the mobile because even the programmers don't take the mobile seriously.
In the minds of one and all, serious business is what happens on the desktop and the mobile is looneytoons bullshit. And that is reflected in the software.
I can sit down somewhere, prop my phone up so I can see it, and then whip out an accessory if it helps... and use it. I honestly don't sit any closer to the screen then I do when I use a laptop usually. I really have no difficulty seeing things. What kills you on a tiny screen like that is when you have to sacrifice screen space for a virtual keyboard. Then you literally can't see what is going on because the fucking virtual keyboard is in the way half the time. So a cheap 10 dollar bluetooth keyboard... and no more worries.
I have a backpack that can carry a lot of stuff in it. I often have a gamepad in it along with an OTG cable. I also have a little bluetooth keyboard. I also have a little backup battery pack that can give my phone enough power to be in a high state of use all day without running out of power.
As to turning the phone into something it is not... hmmm... I think you don't know what the modern smart phone actually is... it is already a small computer. I can plug a mouse or use a bluetooth mouse with any current android phone and the instant it connects you get a cursor on the phone. Now is that ideal? Debatable. I know some people have shitty eyes and can't see small details very well but I my eyes aren't garbage. I can see details on that little screen just fine. Keep in mind, most phones at 720p or 1080p. That is a lot of detail on those screens. If you can resolve it with your eyes then there isn't a problem. All you do is sit quite a bit closer to the screen. Instead of the screen being 2 or 3 feet from your face it is about one foot.
As to remoting into computers using your phone. I do it all the time. It works great. That is actually how I check my email. I don't have a mail app running on my phone. Instead, I remote into my home computer, look at the mail program, and use that. it works fine.
The only thing that bothers me is that software keyboards are shit. I type very quickly and typing with my thumbs on those screens is an exercise in frustration. It takes a lot longer and is much less accurate.
Here you'll say "why not just bring around a little laptop". Because I like having all these capabilities in a device that can be in my pocket.
You think everything should have an interface expressly designed for that device. I don't disagree with you. I am not saying you should use a program that has an awkward interface for that device. What I am saying is that if you WANT to run that program you should be able to do it.
If I could run just about any windows program on my phone that would be pretty damn cool. One of the things that really bothers me about android is that there are not a lot of good text to speech systems. There are a LOT of them for the PC. Everyone is so impressed with google Now... but google now is a joke compared to similar products on the PC. The phone is perfect for a speech recognition interface and yet all of them are far behind what you find on the PC. The only reason no one uses that on the PC is that keyboards and mice are even better in that context. And other issue is dictating webpages or documents. Lets say you're going on your morning run or you are going to work or you're on your coffee break or something. What if you could put your phone in your pocket and have it text to speech articles for you.
Yes, I know the platform does have programs that do that... they're just shit. The ones on the desktop are so much better. I want access to quality programs on my mobile device. The mobile device has shit programs. Android, iOS, whatever. they're all shit.
As to the US knocking down enemy sats, I was more talking about other countries knocking down US sats. But flipping things around... we might just use the rail guns to pop hunter-killers into orbit. But yeah, we can of course kill enemy sats.
The chinese recently also experimented with using lasers to drop enemy sats or just as bad... blind them. You shine lasers into the optics of the enemy sat and burn them out.
As to MIRVs not tracking, there is nothing about the technology that prevents them from doing that besides the fact that they're not currently programmed to do it. Fit them with a two way radio to synchronize targeting information and give them a software upgrade. Done.
As to MIRV targeting, you're assuming the ICBM itself couldn't have targeting equipment on it. The ICBM does roughly come down over the target area. Have it be fitted with survey package that can locate the current position of the enemy fleet. All you'd need then was the initial position and heading of the enemy fleet. Target roughly in the vicinity of where you think it will be... the carriers don't go fast enough to be that far away from that position by the time the ICBM hits apogee. Break apart the MIRVs shortly after apogee and then have them all talk to each other as they're coming in. The ocean is a great place to target things because it is a very simplistic backdrop especially if you are targeting surface ships. There is going to be water and ships. There shouldn't be anything that looks like the target fleet within the engagement zone that isn't the fleet. Coordinate the current location and heading of the enemy fleet and then tell all the MIRVs to drop on it. You're treating this like it is impossible. It seems quite practical with current technology to accomplish all these things.
As to what triggers a MAD response. Are you telling me that you'd go to full blown MAD simply because I destroyed your carrier fleet? You say "when one flies they all fly" but why? You should know by looking at the trajectory of the ICBM that is not targeting your cities. And after all, I'd only be launching one... not hundreds. You'd cause an engagement that would end your civilization over that? Foolish. If anyone should not have access to the nuclear stockpiles it is you. You are the one saying he would launch hundreds of missiles without provocation. That is foolish.
As to radar and ABM systems. ICBMs are by nature very predictable in their trajectory once you know what it is... they don't deviate. The MIRVs do jink around but the ICBM itself does not. Programming in where the enemy ICBM will be into an intercepting missile does not require a sensor package on the ABM system. It merely needs to follow the path that was programmed into it on launch and detonate at the pre programmed moment. There is nothing the enemy ICBM can do that will change anything unless it behaves in a way that current ICBMs do not. For example, the ICBM could go through a burn phase to make it appear like they were going through a standard parabolic target and then stop or burn longer. This would make their actual targets difficult to predict but it would also be very inefficient. That said, nothing is more inefficient then a strike that does not hit. So there is an argument for them doing things like that. But current ABM systems do not need to do that since all the ICBMs are quite predictable as to their destinations shortly after launch.
As to an ABM system needing to maneuver to intercept... that presumes that the ICBM is not predictable in its trajectory or that your original targeting information was inaccurate and needs to be refined. I would counter that ICBMs are very predictable and if you use a nuke to try and kill the enemy ICBM you don't need to be that accurate. Especially if you are doing a close intercept. Let us say we are blowing up the enemy warheads about 200 miles from their target somewhere in the upper atmosphere. Draw a straight line from the launch site to the target... that is going to be the direction of attack. A
... you do realize we're talking about a court of law, right? You don't think emails are going to be relevant in a court trial? Really?
Everything is going to be relevant in a court trial. Character witnesses are going to happen. Both sides are going to bring in expert witnesses. All sorts of otherwise irrelevant information is going to be subpoenaed.
And refusal to comply with a court order is going to be a big problem for the scientists because they have previously been very cagey about sharing some things.
You go to trial and you won't be able to stop it. You resist and you could be held in contempt of court or obstruction of justice or something.
You have no idea the can of worms you're opening.
As to lost passwords, one can assume that any such system grants passive root access to anyone that has physical possession of the system. My own servers for example have no passwords for local access. It is only remote access that requires passwords. I forget my passwords all the time... I just reset them. No big deal.
As to backups... back up your data. Why is this so hard? I have an old computer that sits in my closet. It is slow but it draws very little power and has a lot of connections for harddrives. It is my personal file server. I believe it has 10 hard drives in it. And each of those is synced to another on a bit by bit level. I don't think it is technically raid 1 but it is effectively the same thing. Everything is backed up to that system and when one of the drives goes sour, it isn't a big deal to swap it out for another. The cost of all that was just about zero considering that all the parts are surplus computer parts that otherwise would have been thrown away. My only real expense is electricity. Which is negated to a large extent by the fact that most of the enemy is emitted as heat and that heat moderately warms my home and that means my heater kicks on slightly less often. And that means a portion of the energy spent on that machine is actually free. Still... even without that, the unit draws very little power. The computer spins down and turns off drives that aren't used for 10 minutes.
As to why people go with cloud services... because they're lazy.
As to not knowing how to run real backups. I am admin and have run my own backups on my own systems since long before the cloud ever existed. I have never lost data on any system I was responsible for maintaining. Ever.
Why? I back things up in a minimum of 3 places when the data is important. And a minimum of two places when it isn't.
I also am a big fan of the GFS system because it is very simple and very effective.
On one of my systems a script runs every night, it updates a Zip archive of a database. That is effectively one backup in itself as it is on a different drive within that server.
Then that Zip archive is renamed to the current day and pushed to a different server. A total of 7 days of backups are maintained on that system. They're Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Every Saturday night, a version is pushed to a third system. This system maintains a copy for every Saturday in a month. I might change it so it has a copy of every Saturday in a year but I on the fence about that. I don't really see the point.
Then on the first day of every month another copy is pushed to a forth system and that system maintains a copy of the database as of the first of the month for an entire year.
What is the point of all this? Fraud, data corruption, backups. Lots of reasons. Employees at that company can enter bogus information into the database to steal from the company and by maintaining literal copies of the database through time we can figure out when it started and to what extent it was done. Here you'll say "but if your database is set up this way"... which ignores that the employees are not stupid and are quite capable of subverting quite a bit of the security policy if they choose. A flaw in that database perhaps but that is what the company uses and I had no say in that. My job is maintaining the system. And I do that.
I do agree that most backup programs are crap. I've used a lot of them and the ones that cost 500 or 1000 dollars are often a total waste of money.
The script that does that GFS backup took me a couple hours to write from scratch and so far is the best system I've seen that doesn't do continuous live backups. I've even built little subroutines into it so that it will text message me when it has a problem by sending an email at my provider's email to text message portal. It is just such a nice little script.
The cloud WAS a nice idea. But frankly the NSA and US government in general has made it clear that it is a liability and people should really just stop being such lazy assholes.
Hmmm... Airplanes defend by attacking. That is really all they do from a military stand point. They just attack.
If I can do something that ensures your carrier will not survive, it might not matter if your planes can use their last bit of fuel to kill my weapons platform in retaliation. My platform is probably a lot cheaper then your carrier. I might be very happy to exchange such platforms 1 for 1 with your carriers.
The great strength of the carrier is to be able to project very accurate fire power at very long ranges without exposing itself to counter fire. Nimitz class carriers are supposed to go through battles without a scratch. What if that changed? What if instead of getting a scratch they had to expose themselves to real counter fire simply to deploy their aircraft? Carriers can't take hits.
For one, they're not really armored. For another they're really big targets.
I don't know how you'd maintain their utility while negating their venerability. But that is going to be an increasing concern for the US Navy.
I hear you. But that is politics. If you didn't want this to be a political fight then you shouldn't have made it political.
You did.
The Rubicon has been crossed. The die was cast. And now you have to deal with the consequences of doing that.
The price is that we're not talking about science. It is just another political debate like abortion or gun control. And expecting it to be anything else when both sides have committed to a political fight is at best ignorant.
If you want it to go back to a scientific discussion... which is my wish by the way... then the politics have to be put away. That is going to require a big gesture from all sides for that to happen as well as some very serious vows not to stab each other in the back down the line or immediately shift back into political mode the instant they feel they have an advantage.
If that can happen, then this can be about science again.
Absent that, it is just politics. Period. Science doesn't come into it at all.
You're upping the bid to lawsuits. You must realize that a the court process can be a painful and expensive procedure even for the innocent.
Consider that these same scientists could be sucked into serial lawsuits regarding undisclosed emails, methodology of data filtration/smoothing, disclosure of raw unmodified data which in some cases doesn't exist anymore, detailed explanations of climate models, etc.
Look... you really don't want to open this book. The legal system especially in the US has been successfully used as a bludgeon against people for over a generation. You open this door and lawyers are going to be knocking on the doors of both sides begging them to let their law firm represent them in one lawsuit or another.
Turn on American TV and you'll see all sorts of ads for various lawyers... they say "SUE YOUR BOSS!"... they'll say "were you injured EVER, sue the other guy! FUCK HIM!" They'll say, did you ever use this product? Call us so we can send you a check for 2 dollars, your share of a class action lawsuit that netted our firm a hundred million dollars!" They'll say "Are you the member of any politically advantageous minority? Black, Hispanic, female, gay, transgender? Call us and we'll help you sue people for being bigots!"
And some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to bring the trial lawyers into this shit storm? Okay. *gets more popcorn*
I'm sure there are some programs that are great on tablets. There are just more on the desktop.
As to the context, I am referring to a power capable of challenging a US carrier fleet which excludes any little country.
We're talking about first rate military powers only. Which means powers that design and deploy first rate hardware.
Whether the Russians qualify for that at this point is debatable but the Chinese appear to be doing pretty well these days.
I'm not worried about Iran or Argentina or anything in europe including all of europe combined. There really isn't any hegemonic challenger to the US besides China. Russia is out there playing games but they have an economy smaller than France with territorial obligations and problems that France does not have. I am of course taking into consideration the decline in Russia's economy because of the oil slump. If oil recover they could just about surpass Germany but it isn't in the same class.
Russia tries to mask that issue by spending a large portion of their budget on the military but it isn't enough. They are a credible arms manufacturer but that is about it.
As to satellites, their primary defense and cost is simply launching them into space in the first place. Using conventional technology, every intercept would cost an orbit capable rocket. To knock down the GPS system for example you'd need to drop about six to ten of those sats to have any impact. That is more then Iran is going to be able to pull off. Russia might be able to do that but it would be a significant investment on their part.
And that would just be the GPS system. There are several types of spy sats the US uses. Dropping all the relevant ones in a conflict would not be easy. And you're assuming that all the sats are known. It is possible that there are some sats that get listed as "broken" but are actually just going dark. Military people are by nature paranoid. And you really don't know what they did to protect their various missions.
As to nuking a fleet, the MIRVs independently track targets and can retarget to some extent. I don't see why you couldn't have the MIRVs link to a central targeting system and be retargeted to land where the fleet currently is at that moment. All the ICBM really has to do is get the MIRVs close to where the target was at launch. The fleets aren't that fast. Assuming 30 or 40 miles per hour... how far are they doing to travel in 15 to 30 to 60 minutes? An MIRV can be tasked with hitting targets that far away from target of the ICBM itself. Just have the MIRVs release from the ICBM at apogee, and uplink to the targeting computer, and then home in using a cluster pattern on the enemy fleet. You can even have some of the MIRVs do different things such as electronic warfare etc. The Peacekeeper can carry 10 MIRVs.
Chances are you'd have a hard time stopping even one ICBM much less 50. That would be 500 MIRVs... any one of which would be able to obliterate a carrier fleet.
Furthermore, if I nuked a carrier fleet would you respond by going to Defcon 1? If I hit no population centers and merely killed your carrier group... would you go to full blown MAD nuclear war? I think not. Which means it is a viable tactical option since it does not trigger a doomsday scenario. It is dancing on the edge of Armageddon but it seems to just dance on that edge... not cross it.
As to why the Russians use a nuclear missile to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky... because when they built it they didn't think they could hit the missile directly. So they needed an explosion large and powerful enough to ensure a kill despite not getting especially close to the ICBM. Consult the Russia design. It is an old one but it seems effective.
The US is developing a more elegant system that simply kills the enemy ICBM with kinetic force. But the problem with elegance is that it requires everything work just "so". An advantage of brutality is that it doesn't especially matter. So anyway, the Russians and chinese are upgrading their ICBMs to break apart and kick out a lot of electronic warfare so that a kinetic hunter killer will waste