Your attitude in this matter is just plain rediculous. Why should the United States have to apologize for the hot-dogging of a chinese fighter pilot in his old F-8? What aggrivates me about this scenario is that people such as yourself fail to realize the wound on our military's integrity that would result from apologizing to the Chinese. I happen to be a fighter pilot candidate in the Marine Corps, and if what the news tells me is true, that Chinese pilot deserved to die after flying so close to our plane. First and foremost, when not engaged in combat and the use of deadly force is not authorized, the pilot has a responsibility to maintain a safe distance from his potential adversary so as not to cause a potentially fatal accident. The Chinese F-8 pilot violated this by flying UNDER our plane where the American pilot could not determine the F-8's position. Complain all you want to, but the United States should NOT apologize for a military accident that it did not cause.
In all honesty, I think the idea of open-source military aircraft control software is rediculous. Granted, if the software was open-source, you could probably get fixes for bad code syntax, but probably not for slight physics miscalculations unless PhDs enjoy debugging military code in their spare time (the Osprey's thrust vectoring is enormously complex). Also, it would make me uneasy to think that the rival nations of the United States would have access to the software that controls our most sophisticated aircraft. The control software in our aircraft is part of the reason they are superior to most others in the world.
I'm not going to get into the politics of saying the U.S. is or should be the biggest and baddest and not share its military technology. But just remember, that there ARE nations that do not favor the United States for whatever reasons that I'm not going to discuss. With that thought, as a citizen of the United States, do you want those nations having access to the technology that gives our aircraft an edge over our enemies'? War is a horrible thing, but is sometimes warranted to protect the lives of those who wish to live peacefully.
I hope you will try to see things from my perspective.
Eoin Finn
PLC, United States Marine Corps
good... but could have been better
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 1
I saw the film, and it had a LOT of strong features. The soundtrack is absolutely beautiful... if Hanz Zimmer doesn't win best soundtrack for this movie we'll know the awards are bought out.
Aside from that though, I thought there was a drastic and somewhat unneeded change in Hannibal. In this film he was less outwardly vicious than in the first. Anthony Hopkins did an excellent job filling the character, but there were no "extreme BAMF" scenes in this movie for the character like there was in the first episode. One scene in particular sticks out in my mind... and that's the scene in the first movie when he's beating the cop to death inside the cage with that unbelievable vicious expression on his face. I liked Gary Oldman's role in the film, but I thought that the scene when he cuts his face off because Hannibal tells him to was a little cheesy... regardless of him being drugged.
Julianne Moore didn't do the same caliber performance that Jodie Foster did. Moore's portrayal of Clarice Starling was just a little TOO gung-ho. I know that she's been in the FBI for 10 years busting bad guys since Buffalo Bill, but really... she has brass balls bigger than a platoon of 11 Bravo. I thought Jodie Foster was better simply because she shows raw emotion. When she's talking with Hannibal at the end of the first film over the phone there's a sense of terror and wonder in her voice. Julianne Moore's complete badass attitude when playing cat and mouse with Hannibal in the mall is a little unrealistic... especially considering she knows exactly how dangerous he really is.
But in any case, I thought it was a good film, but it really could have been a masterpiece. And the dinner scene was kind of hokey too... maybe because I really didn't care too much for Liotta's performance. But in any case, enjoy the movie, it's good.
You're right, Envirocycle is just a warehouse full of CRTs on crats with a cracked concrete floor and a stagnant smell in the air... how do I know? I worked for MATCO this summer as a test engineer for U.S. Assemblies, Hallstead. Matco owns several U.S. Assemblies plants (PCB assembly), a board company, and Envirocycle... Envirocycle happened to be the bottom floor of the warehouse... oh yeah, they also have a pretty nice machine shop.
Thanks for the intelligent response. I myself am trying to enter the Marine Corps PLC program to get flight training during my college years and then move on to Pensacola when I graduate and get commission. I was one of those kids who never quite grew out of the "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up" phase.:)
I don't think the question here is bravery. It's the possibility that for certain applications, an unmanned vehicle can outperform a human pilot. I don't think us fighter jocks will be outdated too soon. I'm currently trying to gain acceptance into the PL Class Marine Corps for fighter pilot training. I also resent your comment about US soldiers as being cowards. My grandfathers served in WWII, my father in vietnam, and I'm a college freshman in the National Guard, Delta company, 11 Bravo (for someone such as yourself who wouldn't know, 11 Bravo is infantry). Don't talk to me about courage.
Your response to the question of firearm-related crimes seems logical, however it fails when you consider real world application. Consider Austrailia's gun-banning program; 12 months after the government confiscated all weapons the national beaureau of statistics in Austrailia reported a FOURTY-FOUR percent increase in ARMED robbery. My father instructed me in proper firearms use at an early age (7 years old) and I have since owned several firearms. People like myself who own a multitude of weapons and would never consider performing a criminal act with them are the ONLY people who will be affected by gun legislation because they are the ones who obey laws. Criminals, by definition, do NOT obey laws... what makes you think they will surrender their illegal and unregistered firearms when the gov't passes a law saying they must?
I understand where you're coming from, and you mean well, but in all seriousness I believe the only way to reduce gun violence in this country is to provide VERY severe punishments for any kind of illegal activity involving a firearm. If I kill someone with my own two hands by beating them to death, in my mind that is no different from taking that person's life with a firearm... murder is murder, regardless of the instrument used.
Britain has a system that seems to work, and hey, that's good. However, I bet you still have instances of armed assault in your country, and the only thought that comes to my mind is... I bet the victims wish he/she had a weapon for self defense when they were being robbed/raped/whatever.
Also, look at Switzerland's system. Every man at the age of 18 is given a full automatic rifle (I believe it's a Heckler & Koch weapon) by the government. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. If you were some criminal scumbag, would you want to break into a house where you will probably have an automatic weapon pointed at you? I think not.
Please feel free to voice your concerns on this topic.
Eoin
Slashdot Mirror
Your attitude in this matter is just plain rediculous. Why should the United States have to apologize for the hot-dogging of a chinese fighter pilot in his old F-8? What aggrivates me about this scenario is that people such as yourself fail to realize the wound on our military's integrity that would result from apologizing to the Chinese. I happen to be a fighter pilot candidate in the Marine Corps, and if what the news tells me is true, that Chinese pilot deserved to die after flying so close to our plane. First and foremost, when not engaged in combat and the use of deadly force is not authorized, the pilot has a responsibility to maintain a safe distance from his potential adversary so as not to cause a potentially fatal accident. The Chinese F-8 pilot violated this by flying UNDER our plane where the American pilot could not determine the F-8's position. Complain all you want to, but the United States should NOT apologize for a military accident that it did not cause.
Exactly so... I mean really people, how many turboprops use radar-cloaking materials on their propellers? :)
In all honesty, I think the idea of open-source military aircraft control software is rediculous. Granted, if the software was open-source, you could probably get fixes for bad code syntax, but probably not for slight physics miscalculations unless PhDs enjoy debugging military code in their spare time (the Osprey's thrust vectoring is enormously complex). Also, it would make me uneasy to think that the rival nations of the United States would have access to the software that controls our most sophisticated aircraft. The control software in our aircraft is part of the reason they are superior to most others in the world. I'm not going to get into the politics of saying the U.S. is or should be the biggest and baddest and not share its military technology. But just remember, that there ARE nations that do not favor the United States for whatever reasons that I'm not going to discuss. With that thought, as a citizen of the United States, do you want those nations having access to the technology that gives our aircraft an edge over our enemies'? War is a horrible thing, but is sometimes warranted to protect the lives of those who wish to live peacefully. I hope you will try to see things from my perspective. Eoin Finn PLC, United States Marine Corps
I saw the film, and it had a LOT of strong features. The soundtrack is absolutely beautiful... if Hanz Zimmer doesn't win best soundtrack for this movie we'll know the awards are bought out. Aside from that though, I thought there was a drastic and somewhat unneeded change in Hannibal. In this film he was less outwardly vicious than in the first. Anthony Hopkins did an excellent job filling the character, but there were no "extreme BAMF" scenes in this movie for the character like there was in the first episode. One scene in particular sticks out in my mind... and that's the scene in the first movie when he's beating the cop to death inside the cage with that unbelievable vicious expression on his face. I liked Gary Oldman's role in the film, but I thought that the scene when he cuts his face off because Hannibal tells him to was a little cheesy... regardless of him being drugged. Julianne Moore didn't do the same caliber performance that Jodie Foster did. Moore's portrayal of Clarice Starling was just a little TOO gung-ho. I know that she's been in the FBI for 10 years busting bad guys since Buffalo Bill, but really... she has brass balls bigger than a platoon of 11 Bravo. I thought Jodie Foster was better simply because she shows raw emotion. When she's talking with Hannibal at the end of the first film over the phone there's a sense of terror and wonder in her voice. Julianne Moore's complete badass attitude when playing cat and mouse with Hannibal in the mall is a little unrealistic... especially considering she knows exactly how dangerous he really is. But in any case, I thought it was a good film, but it really could have been a masterpiece. And the dinner scene was kind of hokey too... maybe because I really didn't care too much for Liotta's performance. But in any case, enjoy the movie, it's good.
You're right, Envirocycle is just a warehouse full of CRTs on crats with a cracked concrete floor and a stagnant smell in the air... how do I know? I worked for MATCO this summer as a test engineer for U.S. Assemblies, Hallstead. Matco owns several U.S. Assemblies plants (PCB assembly), a board company, and Envirocycle... Envirocycle happened to be the bottom floor of the warehouse... oh yeah, they also have a pretty nice machine shop.
Thanks for the intelligent response. I myself am trying to enter the Marine Corps PLC program to get flight training during my college years and then move on to Pensacola when I graduate and get commission. I was one of those kids who never quite grew out of the "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up" phase. :)
I don't think the question here is bravery. It's the possibility that for certain applications, an unmanned vehicle can outperform a human pilot. I don't think us fighter jocks will be outdated too soon. I'm currently trying to gain acceptance into the PL Class Marine Corps for fighter pilot training. I also resent your comment about US soldiers as being cowards. My grandfathers served in WWII, my father in vietnam, and I'm a college freshman in the National Guard, Delta company, 11 Bravo (for someone such as yourself who wouldn't know, 11 Bravo is infantry). Don't talk to me about courage.
Your response to the question of firearm-related crimes seems logical, however it fails when you consider real world application. Consider Austrailia's gun-banning program; 12 months after the government confiscated all weapons the national beaureau of statistics in Austrailia reported a FOURTY-FOUR percent increase in ARMED robbery. My father instructed me in proper firearms use at an early age (7 years old) and I have since owned several firearms. People like myself who own a multitude of weapons and would never consider performing a criminal act with them are the ONLY people who will be affected by gun legislation because they are the ones who obey laws. Criminals, by definition, do NOT obey laws... what makes you think they will surrender their illegal and unregistered firearms when the gov't passes a law saying they must? I understand where you're coming from, and you mean well, but in all seriousness I believe the only way to reduce gun violence in this country is to provide VERY severe punishments for any kind of illegal activity involving a firearm. If I kill someone with my own two hands by beating them to death, in my mind that is no different from taking that person's life with a firearm... murder is murder, regardless of the instrument used. Britain has a system that seems to work, and hey, that's good. However, I bet you still have instances of armed assault in your country, and the only thought that comes to my mind is... I bet the victims wish he/she had a weapon for self defense when they were being robbed/raped/whatever. Also, look at Switzerland's system. Every man at the age of 18 is given a full automatic rifle (I believe it's a Heckler & Koch weapon) by the government. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. If you were some criminal scumbag, would you want to break into a house where you will probably have an automatic weapon pointed at you? I think not. Please feel free to voice your concerns on this topic. Eoin