Fair enough, my point however is that weapons systems become obsolete. We must concede that eventually that will happen to the carrier. And it is an issue hotly debated within the US department of Navy as well as the Pentagon proper.
Their objective is to retain a tactical and strategic advantage over any conceivable enemy to the United States. To that end, they will of course try to find ways to adapt to changing circumstances.
In the event that the carrier loses its tactical and strategic edge as a military dominance platform... another platform must be found that retains the strike capability of the carrier while negating the effectiveness of weapons systems designed specifically to make carrier fleets non-viable.
If you're fighting a war, then why exactly is that going to be a concern? Are you going to allow enemy orbital infrastructure to go unchallenged?
An alternative option rather then simply punching a hole in a sat would be to propel a hunter killer into orbit by rail gun... around the orbit of the sat it uses an on board propulsion system to coast very gently over to the target. Then when it arrives it can either short out the sat or hack it through direct hardware to hardware links. I'm pretty sure that most of our sats can be overridden with minimal security codes if you can link into diagnostic ports. Either way... the point is that the gun can do some unconventional thinks if it has enough power. About 5 times the power it has now and it can hit orbital targets.
max range on that weapon was 12 miles. I was talking about something closer to 500. Something you could strike a submerged flotilla with without coming into range of most of their weapons systems.
Hmmm... if you think the new paradigm is going to be cheap then you're in error.
Yes, the railguns have a lower cost per shot however they have a much higher cost per gun. The real advantage of the railgun is increased magazine capacity. A railgun can fire again and again and again and again without depleting its magazine significantly. The cost per shot is sort of like comparing the cost of gasoline versus solar. Yeah, the solar panel spends no money collecting energy from the sun and turning it into electricity. However, the upfront cost of the solar panel is a lot higher then the gasoline + engine. So I wouldn't worry about the money. Nuclear generators for example are a lot cheaper to fuel and maintain then diesel generators on a ship. You also get a lot more range because they don't have to be refueled for years. However, almost no one uses them besides the US and Russians because the upfront cost is a good deal higher. And if you're not serious about playing strategic cat and mouse then you're not going to do it.
I wouldn't worry about the North Koreans getting railguns.
Then how does a man in a fox hole lob a grenade into another fox hole without even poking his head above his own fox hole?
Naval guns don't point directly at their targets. They account for range by pointing UP. This gives the trajectory a curve which more then compensates for the curvature of the Earth. They also account for wind by pointing the guns slightly into the wind to counter the effect of the wind. And then they account for heading by leading the target a bit such that they're aiming for where the enemy will be when the shell arrives rather then where the enemy is right now. Other things are factored... humidity, air pressure, temperature, etc. Factor it all accurately and in real time with a computer and you have a good chance of hitting your target unless it is jinking all over the place.
Currently railguns have about the same muzzle velocity as a WW2 battleship cannon. Which is only because no one has ever gotten a shell to travel faster then that with chemical propellant. There might be some exceptions. I think some of the giant land guns might have had higher muzzle velocities. The germans had a big gun they used against the French and I think there was another one built in the middle east somewhere but it escapes me. Regardless, the weapons were too large to really be practical. They were big white elephants that accomplished very little compared to their cost.
Railguns have the potential to achieve far higher muzzle velocities. Again, you could potentially fire a shot from a destroyer straight up and slap a satellite out of the sky if you got the muzzle velocity up about four or five times what a WW2 battleship could manage. That is a long way to go but it is technically possible. Where as with a chemical propellant you'd need an absurdly long barrel to even try such a thing.
Compared to what? How is the current paradigm any better? The only advantage of the current paradigm is that we're well adapted for it. We have the largest surface carrier fleet in the world.
However, the British had the largest battleship fleet in the world and what did that get them when the airplane came around?
Call it what you will... the law of this world is adapt or die. If we wish to maintain our military edge then it is in our interest to be realistic about the long term viability of our fleets and adapt strategies as required.
The issue with our current weapons systems is that they are very vulnerable to modern weapons. You could drop a whole carrier fleet fairly easily with a barrage of hypersonic missiles fired from a small number of disposable re-purposed fishing boats. Just strap on the launchers, sync them with orbital spy sat targeting and geo location... and fire. Those things come screaming in faster then bullets... and even the Aegis defense system is reported to be unable to really stop them.
Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit.
And the carrier group is slag heading to the bottom of the ocean. Don't blame me. I'm not the one that invented the machine gun and made infantry charges obsolete. That's just progress.
You have to know the carrier will be obsolete eventually. And when that happens what will take its place?
I gave two options of what I thought was more survivable. The first is just high endurance aircraft capable of traveling very long distances without refueling. That means the carriers if they exist could stay well out of hypersonic missile range. However, the problem with that idea is that carriers would be incapable of traveling within hundreds of miles of the enemy coast simply because it would be too easy to fire a hidden shore battery that destroyed the carrier. The current range of hypersonic missiles is about 50 miles. That is the current critical range. You have to kill from beyond 50 miles. Or more then 5 times the maximum range of WW2 battleship guns. And note, those guns were not accurate at that range. That is how far the range has opened up. It was not long ago that ships had to see each other to engage each other. Today, if you can see the enemy then one side or the other has committed suicide.
Submersible ships are another option. It sounds exotic but it was successfully done during WW2. The only trick would be to give it enough mass to carry enough weaponry to be effective and then to give it a power plant with enough power to give the ship freedom of the seas. If a carrier fleet can submerge and stay submerged for months at a time like our ballistic fleet then they can cruise right within the critical range of these weapons systems, surface, deploy their weaponry, and then submerge before they can be stopped or retaliated against.
This gives such a fleet freedom of the seas as well as the ability to counter the worst enemy weapons so long as the ships can dive fast enough to avoid a strike.
A counter might be cruise torpedoes. We have missiles that fly to a specific destination, then break off the tip which lands in the water... that tip is a self guided homing torpedo. It homes in on enemy sonar and acoustic signatures and attempts to destroy them. These weapons are quite effective against submarines and it allows US destroyers to launch a few of these in various directions. They all splash into the water and seek enemy targets. It is quite difficult to evade all them. And subs really have very few options against enemy torpedoes.
Simply affix that torpedo to a cruise missile giving it a 500 or so mile range.
In addition, you can setup a web of passive listening stations throughout the ocean floor that listen for even the smallest sound anywhere in the sea. If they're all networked then you should be able to passively echo locate any fleet that gets near the net.
I rather doubt the regional cap services subject their drivers to more of a background check then what Uber did.
The whole thing reads like the pattern of harassment we've seen throughout the world where ever uber sets up shop. The cab companies complain... politicians wring their hands... lawsuits from nowhere start pouring in... and of course none of the same standards being demanded of Uber are ever applied to the existing players in the industry.
We're seeing this play out throughout europe and America. So I see this happening in India and I smell bullcrap.
I'm not saying the guy didn't rape the girl. And I'm not saying that is bad. What I am saying is that Uber shouldn't be expected to meet a standard that other people in the industry aren't likewise expected to meet.
Require the existing cab companies to do whatever it is you want and you'll find that suddenly the politicians pushing for all this stuff start moderating their position as the cab companies quietly tell them it isn't worth it.
Lasers are used against aircraft or missiles. The railguns are for naval targets. Smoke is hilariously ineffective against a railgun strike. And it is hard to maintain a smoke screen around a missile or an aircraft.
Keep in mind, anything you could hit with a navel gun is even easier to hit with a rail gun. Currently the velocity of railguns is roughly equivalent to navel guns. However, that speed will climb.
Eventually this speed should surpass escape velocity which means railguns will eventually be able to tag satellites or even launch small hunter-killer kill vehicles to destroy/disable/subvert enemy orbital infrastructure.
The weapons are quite effective. The question in the new era is how to defend against such things so that a battle group is survivable. Between all this and hypersonic missiles carrier groups might be a thing of the past. Large surface fleets might also just be too vulnerable to be useful.
High endurance aircraft that can strike from extreme range and attack submarines with surface strike capability might be the order of the day. A submersible destroyer for example could get in close with heavy weaponry, fire a salvo, and then dive before enemy systems could target and strike it. Such a thing would be vulnerable to enemy attack submarines but then you could just escort it with a flotilla of attack submarines to act as defense. You could even add some drone carriers. Submersible aircraft carriers were built by the Japanese in WW2. Consider what you could do if you gave such a design a nuclear power plant, expanded the size to Nimitz proportions, and replaced the planes entirely with more compact drones.
... political retards foam at the mere mention of someone named Koch. Never mind the guy is a big name in computer security and has nothing what so ever to do with it. This is supposed to be slashdot. Not the huffington post or whereever your fucktards came from.
On topic, I definitely think someone should partner with him. If he wants to go it alone and stay solo then... there is a price for that. Being alone means you're alone. However, his name and experience would lend some value to one of the larger encryption pushes. I'm sure one of the bigger tech companies that feels they need to boost their credibility in security could fund him for a song.
We'll see what happens. I wish the fellow well and more importantly hope that strong encryption becomes a bigger part of the way everything is done going forward.
And no where have you shown me any evidence that the standard you are holding them to is the industry standard in India.
Absent that fact, Uber is at worst no worse then their existing peers in the industry. If that is the case, then going after them reeks of corruption. It looks like the same old strategy used throughout the world to keep new competition out of established industries. New guy shows up... and the existing industries bribe the politicians and officials to fuck over the new company and drive them out of the market.
That is what this looks like at best. I can actually think of worse things going on here. But if you're only going after Uber for doing something that common in that market... then I'm calling bullshit.
No, it isn't behind the technology curve. They weren't regulating remote controlled airplanes. I could fly a little remote controlled airplane and do all this stuff and the FAA wouldn't have said anything.
What is the difference? What they're doing is trying to regulate something that previously no one cared about. And really they have no reason to regulate it beyond what is already on the books.
Here is what needs to be established:
1. Stay away from controlled airspace such as airports. 2. Stay below 500 or so feet so there is no chance that your drone will hit an aircraft.
And pretty much that is it. Everything else is already covered by existing law.
It is already illegal to crash things you own into other people's property. No need for a new law.
It is already illegal to put a camera right outside someone's bathroom window and take naughty pictures of them. No need for a new law.
What exactly do you want to regulate that isn't already covered by existing regulations?
If I take a ball and throw it through your window.
I am held accountable.
Did you issue me a license to own a ball or throw it? No.
So why do you need to regulate it for people to be held accountable?
If I have a drone and that drone falls out of the sky and breaks a skylight or something... then obviously I am liable for damages. Nothing needs to be passed in law to make me liable for damage I cause with a drone I own.
The licensing system is expressly there to prevent people from operating drones. It makes it more expensive and annoying to do it.
Tell you what, you charge me NOTHING for the license. Not one fucking cent. And you make the process easy and painless... and I'm all for it.
You bill me so much as a fucking penny or waste my time with a bunch of bullshit and then we have problems.
So you allege that Uber is the only company in indian history to have a cab driver that raped someone?
And do we even know if he actually did it? I mean... was he convicted? Or are you one of those "listen and believe" people that thinks due process doesn't apply to rape cases?
Nothing is without risk. As to liability, if I crash my drone into your house then I am liable for that with or without regulation. So I really don't see what the fuck you think you're talking about.
One of the businesses the FAA shut down was a guy that took pictures of houses for real estate companies. You'd pay him a fee and he'd show up with his drone. Fly the drone around the property a few times taking video and pictures. And then give the realtor a copy of the pictures/video to help sell the house.
Who could possibly be hurt by that, you complete fucking asshat?
Another example, there was a beer company that had a brewery along a lake. Every year the lake freezes and people go out to the middle of the lake to ice fish. The beer company had a promotion where you could call them and they'd deliver you a six pack of beer by drone. The drone in this case was flying entirely over a frozen lake. Who was being hurt there, you festering boil on the ass of humanity?
And the examples really could be just about endless. I mean, you're saying I can't use a drone to take pictures of a wedding because a 2 pound drone might accidentally fall on someone? Beyond belief.
Comments like yours make me want to live on a different planet.
Google has been trying... they went from sending almost nothing to washington to basically sending them all money.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about congressman. I was talking about lower level bureaucrats. You see it in a lot of countries. You get pulled over for speeding or whatever and you can make it go away by slipping the officer a reasonable bribe. Sometimes all it takes is 10 bucks. Sometimes they want more.
If the government isn't going to be rational on the subject then they need to be subverted in various ways.
Musk was saying that he was seriously constrained by US regulations as to how he built the Teslas. He has to have a blank space on his dash board for example so that there is room to put in a tachometer. His car is electric and they don't have tachometers. But government regulations say you have to have at least the spot on the dashboard for it. And he had to put in side view mirrors instead of side view cameras. He wanted to do away with the mirrors and do it instead with CCTV. Forbidden. Lots of little things. He says the regulations amounted to something like a phonebook of regulations that any car has to meet to be road legal. It is over regulation.
What a car needs to be is safe. It needs to be able to navigate the roads safely. That's it. Then you bring your car in for an inspection and they determine if it is safe. Specifying everything out to the nth degree is idiotic. And that is what they're doing with everything including this bullshit FAA drone license crap.
You didn't need a license to fly a remote controlled airplane. Who cares so long as whatever it is stays out of controlled airspace and below 500 or so feet. The whole thing is asinine.
I actually have a lot of legal background. You're a half wit. Lawyers get their clients off idiotic charges every day because some idiot police officer or bureaucrat thinks they push people around with bullshit laws.
If you want your stupid law to be taken as credible then you're going to have to use it in more then one case. In any halfway competent legal system you could point at how no one else is every held to that standard and walk out of the court room.
No legal system that abandons any notion of what is and is not reasonable survives for very long. You create an atmosphere of fear that encourages bribery and corruption which ultimately makes the "law" one of making sure that the police/government officials are properly bribed. And on that basis you avoid legal troubles.
That is what happens when reason ceases to matter... force, bribery, extortion, and coercion become the orders of the day.
You say that in some cases given courts will apply the law in arbitrary illogical ways to suit the vested interests of given parties? I'm sure it happens... but if it becomes common, then the court becomes a joke.
Given that I like rule of law, I must also respect what is and is not reasonable. And that is the line that divides us.
We all compete against our peers. And the problem in many public schools is that your peers are often lazy idiots that are pretty much effortless to compete against.
Then when you leave that school you're competing against a totally different group of people. And that is where you'll fail because you're not ready for them. You were ready to compete against the other kids in your class room. You could stomp them. But the next group is sometimes a lot harder.
What is nice about homeschooling... is that you don't really have peers. Your parents challenge you. Now, a lot of people think homeschooling is terrible because of the various religious people that tend to be all about homeschooling. But see it from the perspective of a young mind. If you're instead competing for the approval of your parents rather then to simply show that you're as good or better then your peers... then the standards can be a lot higher. I think people try harder in that situation. And they might be better behaved because their whole sense of social self worth is probably tied up in that approval.
Here someone will say that is bad, but if the point is to produce kids that have a high knowledge base then what is the problem?
A major component of why kids do better in private schools is because you tend to have to try a bit harder to equal your peers. They're a little less stupid and a little less lazy. So you have to try harder. But a home schooled kid might be competing literally against his mother and father who are doubtless better educated then nearly any high school student you could name.
Just think about the human animal and how it relates to its world.
An interesting compromise might be to manipulated the class room in such a way that the students do not feel like they are competing against each other but rather against an external standard or perhaps some select group of kids somewhere else.
So... if there is a law on the books that says you can't wear orange on an alternate tuesday... and the law has never in 1000 years ever been actually applied.
Then you make a police officer mad... and he responds by arresting you for it.
That is just fine?
See... reasonableness is the key here.
If it is reasonable to apply the law to Uber, then fine. Apply it. If it is NOT reasonable then do not.
I argue that it is not reasonable to single out a new comer to an industry to meet a standard that existing companies in that industry have never really had to meet.
You disagree... Because... you don't believe in being reasonable. You're not a reasonable person. And since you're not a reasonable person, it is literally impossible to reason with you. Which means having any kind of discussion with you where reason is relevant becomes impossible.
I see, so it is appropriate to single Uber out because they have money and are a foreign company disrupting entrenched industries.
But it isn't reasonable to point out that you're holding them to a double standard that no one else in their markets are held to?
Let me tell you something about any competent justice system, they all have a concept of "reasonableness". If someone says "this or that is bad" you can respond "perhaps but there is no reasonable way to counter that". Reasonableness is a core tenant of any effective justice system. The instant you stop caring what is and is not reasonable is the instant you've created an erradic, unpredictable, and ultimately hostile system that no one will trust or feel comfortable with.
Your black and white interpretation of everything is what you saw in revolutionary France during the Reign of Terror. When your sort of ethos is applied what happens is everyone is marched to the execution block and the blood flows like water.
Be reasonable. If no one else in their industry is held to that standard, then you can change the rules... apply them to everyone... and if Uber fails to update their policies to keep up with local customs then you can dock them. However, singling out a new player in a market for doing things no differently then the established players merely reeks of corruption.
And which services in India perform these checks? Not just says they do but actually does them?
As to what Uber does in india, I've seen nothing that shows me that they conduct less then their competitors. Are you saying the indian cab companies conduct more extensive background checks, verify documents, and make sure that there aren't forgeries?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, my point however is that weapons systems become obsolete. We must concede that eventually that will happen to the carrier. And it is an issue hotly debated within the US department of Navy as well as the Pentagon proper.
Their objective is to retain a tactical and strategic advantage over any conceivable enemy to the United States. To that end, they will of course try to find ways to adapt to changing circumstances.
In the event that the carrier loses its tactical and strategic edge as a military dominance platform... another platform must be found that retains the strike capability of the carrier while negating the effectiveness of weapons systems designed specifically to make carrier fleets non-viable.
If you're fighting a war, then why exactly is that going to be a concern? Are you going to allow enemy orbital infrastructure to go unchallenged?
An alternative option rather then simply punching a hole in a sat would be to propel a hunter killer into orbit by rail gun... around the orbit of the sat it uses an on board propulsion system to coast very gently over to the target. Then when it arrives it can either short out the sat or hack it through direct hardware to hardware links. I'm pretty sure that most of our sats can be overridden with minimal security codes if you can link into diagnostic ports. Either way... the point is that the gun can do some unconventional thinks if it has enough power. About 5 times the power it has now and it can hit orbital targets.
max range on that weapon was 12 miles. I was talking about something closer to 500. Something you could strike a submerged flotilla with without coming into range of most of their weapons systems.
Hmmm... if you think the new paradigm is going to be cheap then you're in error.
Yes, the railguns have a lower cost per shot however they have a much higher cost per gun. The real advantage of the railgun is increased magazine capacity. A railgun can fire again and again and again and again without depleting its magazine significantly. The cost per shot is sort of like comparing the cost of gasoline versus solar. Yeah, the solar panel spends no money collecting energy from the sun and turning it into electricity. However, the upfront cost of the solar panel is a lot higher then the gasoline + engine. So I wouldn't worry about the money. Nuclear generators for example are a lot cheaper to fuel and maintain then diesel generators on a ship. You also get a lot more range because they don't have to be refueled for years. However, almost no one uses them besides the US and Russians because the upfront cost is a good deal higher. And if you're not serious about playing strategic cat and mouse then you're not going to do it.
I wouldn't worry about the North Koreans getting railguns.
Then how does a man in a fox hole lob a grenade into another fox hole without even poking his head above his own fox hole?
Naval guns don't point directly at their targets. They account for range by pointing UP. This gives the trajectory a curve which more then compensates for the curvature of the Earth. They also account for wind by pointing the guns slightly into the wind to counter the effect of the wind. And then they account for heading by leading the target a bit such that they're aiming for where the enemy will be when the shell arrives rather then where the enemy is right now. Other things are factored... humidity, air pressure, temperature, etc. Factor it all accurately and in real time with a computer and you have a good chance of hitting your target unless it is jinking all over the place.
Currently railguns have about the same muzzle velocity as a WW2 battleship cannon. Which is only because no one has ever gotten a shell to travel faster then that with chemical propellant. There might be some exceptions. I think some of the giant land guns might have had higher muzzle velocities. The germans had a big gun they used against the French and I think there was another one built in the middle east somewhere but it escapes me. Regardless, the weapons were too large to really be practical. They were big white elephants that accomplished very little compared to their cost.
Railguns have the potential to achieve far higher muzzle velocities. Again, you could potentially fire a shot from a destroyer straight up and slap a satellite out of the sky if you got the muzzle velocity up about four or five times what a WW2 battleship could manage. That is a long way to go but it is technically possible. Where as with a chemical propellant you'd need an absurdly long barrel to even try such a thing.
Compared to what? How is the current paradigm any better? The only advantage of the current paradigm is that we're well adapted for it. We have the largest surface carrier fleet in the world.
However, the British had the largest battleship fleet in the world and what did that get them when the airplane came around?
Call it what you will... the law of this world is adapt or die. If we wish to maintain our military edge then it is in our interest to be realistic about the long term viability of our fleets and adapt strategies as required.
The issue with our current weapons systems is that they are very vulnerable to modern weapons. You could drop a whole carrier fleet fairly easily with a barrage of hypersonic missiles fired from a small number of disposable re-purposed fishing boats. Just strap on the launchers, sync them with orbital spy sat targeting and geo location... and fire. Those things come screaming in faster then bullets... and even the Aegis defense system is reported to be unable to really stop them.
Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit. Hit.
And the carrier group is slag heading to the bottom of the ocean. Don't blame me. I'm not the one that invented the machine gun and made infantry charges obsolete. That's just progress.
You have to know the carrier will be obsolete eventually. And when that happens what will take its place?
I gave two options of what I thought was more survivable. The first is just high endurance aircraft capable of traveling very long distances without refueling. That means the carriers if they exist could stay well out of hypersonic missile range. However, the problem with that idea is that carriers would be incapable of traveling within hundreds of miles of the enemy coast simply because it would be too easy to fire a hidden shore battery that destroyed the carrier. The current range of hypersonic missiles is about 50 miles. That is the current critical range. You have to kill from beyond 50 miles. Or more then 5 times the maximum range of WW2 battleship guns. And note, those guns were not accurate at that range. That is how far the range has opened up. It was not long ago that ships had to see each other to engage each other. Today, if you can see the enemy then one side or the other has committed suicide.
Submersible ships are another option. It sounds exotic but it was successfully done during WW2. The only trick would be to give it enough mass to carry enough weaponry to be effective and then to give it a power plant with enough power to give the ship freedom of the seas. If a carrier fleet can submerge and stay submerged for months at a time like our ballistic fleet then they can cruise right within the critical range of these weapons systems, surface, deploy their weaponry, and then submerge before they can be stopped or retaliated against.
This gives such a fleet freedom of the seas as well as the ability to counter the worst enemy weapons so long as the ships can dive fast enough to avoid a strike.
A counter might be cruise torpedoes. We have missiles that fly to a specific destination, then break off the tip which lands in the water... that tip is a self guided homing torpedo. It homes in on enemy sonar and acoustic signatures and attempts to destroy them. These weapons are quite effective against submarines and it allows US destroyers to launch a few of these in various directions. They all splash into the water and seek enemy targets. It is quite difficult to evade all them. And subs really have very few options against enemy torpedoes.
Simply affix that torpedo to a cruise missile giving it a 500 or so mile range.
In addition, you can setup a web of passive listening stations throughout the ocean floor that listen for even the smallest sound anywhere in the sea. If they're all networked then you should be able to passively echo locate any fleet that gets near the net.
Such are arms races.
I rather doubt the regional cap services subject their drivers to more of a background check then what Uber did.
The whole thing reads like the pattern of harassment we've seen throughout the world where ever uber sets up shop. The cab companies complain... politicians wring their hands... lawsuits from nowhere start pouring in... and of course none of the same standards being demanded of Uber are ever applied to the existing players in the industry.
We're seeing this play out throughout europe and America. So I see this happening in India and I smell bullcrap.
I'm not saying the guy didn't rape the girl. And I'm not saying that is bad. What I am saying is that Uber shouldn't be expected to meet a standard that other people in the industry aren't likewise expected to meet.
Require the existing cab companies to do whatever it is you want and you'll find that suddenly the politicians pushing for all this stuff start moderating their position as the cab companies quietly tell them it isn't worth it.
Lasers are used against aircraft or missiles. The railguns are for naval targets. Smoke is hilariously ineffective against a railgun strike. And it is hard to maintain a smoke screen around a missile or an aircraft.
Keep in mind, anything you could hit with a navel gun is even easier to hit with a rail gun. Currently the velocity of railguns is roughly equivalent to navel guns. However, that speed will climb.
Eventually this speed should surpass escape velocity which means railguns will eventually be able to tag satellites or even launch small hunter-killer kill vehicles to destroy/disable/subvert enemy orbital infrastructure.
The weapons are quite effective. The question in the new era is how to defend against such things so that a battle group is survivable. Between all this and hypersonic missiles carrier groups might be a thing of the past. Large surface fleets might also just be too vulnerable to be useful.
High endurance aircraft that can strike from extreme range and attack submarines with surface strike capability might be the order of the day. A submersible destroyer for example could get in close with heavy weaponry, fire a salvo, and then dive before enemy systems could target and strike it. Such a thing would be vulnerable to enemy attack submarines but then you could just escort it with a flotilla of attack submarines to act as defense. You could even add some drone carriers. Submersible aircraft carriers were built by the Japanese in WW2. Consider what you could do if you gave such a design a nuclear power plant, expanded the size to Nimitz proportions, and replaced the planes entirely with more compact drones.
That is a possible vision of the future.
All told a lot of the humanities courses need to be elective. There are arguments against doing that but they're outweighed by the reasons to do it.
... political retards foam at the mere mention of someone named Koch. Never mind the guy is a big name in computer security and has nothing what so ever to do with it. This is supposed to be slashdot. Not the huffington post or whereever your fucktards came from.
On topic, I definitely think someone should partner with him. If he wants to go it alone and stay solo then... there is a price for that. Being alone means you're alone. However, his name and experience would lend some value to one of the larger encryption pushes. I'm sure one of the bigger tech companies that feels they need to boost their credibility in security could fund him for a song.
We'll see what happens. I wish the fellow well and more importantly hope that strong encryption becomes a bigger part of the way everything is done going forward.
No, that wasn't the issue. The issue was the drone. ATF didn't complain. It was the FAA.
And no where have you shown me any evidence that the standard you are holding them to is the industry standard in India.
Absent that fact, Uber is at worst no worse then their existing peers in the industry. If that is the case, then going after them reeks of corruption. It looks like the same old strategy used throughout the world to keep new competition out of established industries. New guy shows up... and the existing industries bribe the politicians and officials to fuck over the new company and drive them out of the market.
That is what this looks like at best. I can actually think of worse things going on here. But if you're only going after Uber for doing something that common in that market... then I'm calling bullshit.
No, it isn't behind the technology curve. They weren't regulating remote controlled airplanes. I could fly a little remote controlled airplane and do all this stuff and the FAA wouldn't have said anything.
What is the difference? What they're doing is trying to regulate something that previously no one cared about. And really they have no reason to regulate it beyond what is already on the books.
Here is what needs to be established:
1. Stay away from controlled airspace such as airports.
2. Stay below 500 or so feet so there is no chance that your drone will hit an aircraft.
And pretty much that is it. Everything else is already covered by existing law.
It is already illegal to crash things you own into other people's property. No need for a new law.
It is already illegal to put a camera right outside someone's bathroom window and take naughty pictures of them. No need for a new law.
What exactly do you want to regulate that isn't already covered by existing regulations?
Everyone was already held accountable.
If I take a ball and throw it through your window.
I am held accountable.
Did you issue me a license to own a ball or throw it? No.
So why do you need to regulate it for people to be held accountable?
If I have a drone and that drone falls out of the sky and breaks a skylight or something... then obviously I am liable for damages. Nothing needs to be passed in law to make me liable for damage I cause with a drone I own.
The licensing system is expressly there to prevent people from operating drones. It makes it more expensive and annoying to do it.
Tell you what, you charge me NOTHING for the license. Not one fucking cent. And you make the process easy and painless... and I'm all for it.
You bill me so much as a fucking penny or waste my time with a bunch of bullshit and then we have problems.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Idiots are going to start regulating when I am allowed to take piss in my own home soon...
So you allege that Uber is the only company in indian history to have a cab driver that raped someone?
And do we even know if he actually did it? I mean... was he convicted? Or are you one of those "listen and believe" people that thinks due process doesn't apply to rape cases?
Then remove all cars from the streets.
Nothing is without risk. As to liability, if I crash my drone into your house then I am liable for that with or without regulation. So I really don't see what the fuck you think you're talking about.
One of the businesses the FAA shut down was a guy that took pictures of houses for real estate companies. You'd pay him a fee and he'd show up with his drone. Fly the drone around the property a few times taking video and pictures. And then give the realtor a copy of the pictures/video to help sell the house.
Who could possibly be hurt by that, you complete fucking asshat?
Another example, there was a beer company that had a brewery along a lake. Every year the lake freezes and people go out to the middle of the lake to ice fish. The beer company had a promotion where you could call them and they'd deliver you a six pack of beer by drone. The drone in this case was flying entirely over a frozen lake. Who was being hurt there, you festering boil on the ass of humanity?
And the examples really could be just about endless. I mean, you're saying I can't use a drone to take pictures of a wedding because a 2 pound drone might accidentally fall on someone? Beyond belief.
Comments like yours make me want to live on a different planet.
Google has been trying... they went from sending almost nothing to washington to basically sending them all money.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about congressman. I was talking about lower level bureaucrats. You see it in a lot of countries. You get pulled over for speeding or whatever and you can make it go away by slipping the officer a reasonable bribe. Sometimes all it takes is 10 bucks. Sometimes they want more.
If the government isn't going to be rational on the subject then they need to be subverted in various ways.
Musk was saying that he was seriously constrained by US regulations as to how he built the Teslas. He has to have a blank space on his dash board for example so that there is room to put in a tachometer. His car is electric and they don't have tachometers. But government regulations say you have to have at least the spot on the dashboard for it. And he had to put in side view mirrors instead of side view cameras. He wanted to do away with the mirrors and do it instead with CCTV. Forbidden. Lots of little things. He says the regulations amounted to something like a phonebook of regulations that any car has to meet to be road legal. It is over regulation.
What a car needs to be is safe. It needs to be able to navigate the roads safely. That's it. Then you bring your car in for an inspection and they determine if it is safe. Specifying everything out to the nth degree is idiotic. And that is what they're doing with everything including this bullshit FAA drone license crap.
You didn't need a license to fly a remote controlled airplane. Who cares so long as whatever it is stays out of controlled airspace and below 500 or so feet. The whole thing is asinine.
I actually have a lot of legal background. You're a half wit. Lawyers get their clients off idiotic charges every day because some idiot police officer or bureaucrat thinks they push people around with bullshit laws.
If you want your stupid law to be taken as credible then you're going to have to use it in more then one case. In any halfway competent legal system you could point at how no one else is every held to that standard and walk out of the court room.
Final statement to you. Good fucking day.
... first. We came up with the idea and our people tried to do it. But yet again... fucking government.
I'd almost prefer if our government were more corrupt so we could at least bribe them to be less stupid.
No legal system that abandons any notion of what is and is not reasonable survives for very long. You create an atmosphere of fear that encourages bribery and corruption which ultimately makes the "law" one of making sure that the police/government officials are properly bribed. And on that basis you avoid legal troubles.
That is what happens when reason ceases to matter... force, bribery, extortion, and coercion become the orders of the day.
You say that in some cases given courts will apply the law in arbitrary illogical ways to suit the vested interests of given parties? I'm sure it happens... but if it becomes common, then the court becomes a joke.
Given that I like rule of law, I must also respect what is and is not reasonable. And that is the line that divides us.
Good day.
We all compete against our peers. And the problem in many public schools is that your peers are often lazy idiots that are pretty much effortless to compete against.
Then when you leave that school you're competing against a totally different group of people. And that is where you'll fail because you're not ready for them. You were ready to compete against the other kids in your class room. You could stomp them. But the next group is sometimes a lot harder.
What is nice about homeschooling... is that you don't really have peers. Your parents challenge you. Now, a lot of people think homeschooling is terrible because of the various religious people that tend to be all about homeschooling. But see it from the perspective of a young mind. If you're instead competing for the approval of your parents rather then to simply show that you're as good or better then your peers... then the standards can be a lot higher. I think people try harder in that situation. And they might be better behaved because their whole sense of social self worth is probably tied up in that approval.
Here someone will say that is bad, but if the point is to produce kids that have a high knowledge base then what is the problem?
A major component of why kids do better in private schools is because you tend to have to try a bit harder to equal your peers. They're a little less stupid and a little less lazy. So you have to try harder. But a home schooled kid might be competing literally against his mother and father who are doubtless better educated then nearly any high school student you could name.
Just think about the human animal and how it relates to its world.
An interesting compromise might be to manipulated the class room in such a way that the students do not feel like they are competing against each other but rather against an external standard or perhaps some select group of kids somewhere else.
So... if there is a law on the books that says you can't wear orange on an alternate tuesday... and the law has never in 1000 years ever been actually applied.
Then you make a police officer mad... and he responds by arresting you for it.
That is just fine?
See... reasonableness is the key here.
If it is reasonable to apply the law to Uber, then fine. Apply it. If it is NOT reasonable then do not.
I argue that it is not reasonable to single out a new comer to an industry to meet a standard that existing companies in that industry have never really had to meet.
You disagree... Because... you don't believe in being reasonable. You're not a reasonable person. And since you're not a reasonable person, it is literally impossible to reason with you. Which means having any kind of discussion with you where reason is relevant becomes impossible.
Sorry... you're crazy.
Good day.
I see, so it is appropriate to single Uber out because they have money and are a foreign company disrupting entrenched industries.
But it isn't reasonable to point out that you're holding them to a double standard that no one else in their markets are held to?
Let me tell you something about any competent justice system, they all have a concept of "reasonableness". If someone says "this or that is bad" you can respond "perhaps but there is no reasonable way to counter that". Reasonableness is a core tenant of any effective justice system. The instant you stop caring what is and is not reasonable is the instant you've created an erradic, unpredictable, and ultimately hostile system that no one will trust or feel comfortable with.
Your black and white interpretation of everything is what you saw in revolutionary France during the Reign of Terror. When your sort of ethos is applied what happens is everyone is marched to the execution block and the blood flows like water.
Be reasonable. If no one else in their industry is held to that standard, then you can change the rules... apply them to everyone... and if Uber fails to update their policies to keep up with local customs then you can dock them. However, singling out a new player in a market for doing things no differently then the established players merely reeks of corruption.
And which services in India perform these checks? Not just says they do but actually does them?
As to what Uber does in india, I've seen nothing that shows me that they conduct less then their competitors. Are you saying the indian cab companies conduct more extensive background checks, verify documents, and make sure that there aren't forgeries?