It's a public affairs website. Everything put on it is carefully screened before it's released to the public. It's fashionable to bash the military and things they spend money on, so they want to have the chance to show themselves and what they're spending money on in a positive light. They want you, (presumeably a taxpayer) to see where your money is going and to convince you it is worthwhile. Maybe if the military gets a chance to give its side of the story, (and people would realize that there really are bad guys out there that occassionally need to be checked), maybe people would feel better about their government. If not, vote. At least they're showing you and giving you the choice.
I don't see any hypocrisy here. We're talking about technology that lets us do our jobs with less net loss of lives. We won't accidentally shoot our allies and comrades, we'll know where refugees are and be able to protect them better, we'll know where our enemy's center of gravity is, which will enable us to achieve victory while actually killing fewer enemy troops, who are quite possibly only doing their job. I don't revel in the thought of killing other people, but war is a reality of the human condition--even if it is one we'd be better off without. Given the reality of war, you are given two choices--be good at it, or suck at it and die (or hope someone who is good at it will stick up for you). If you are good at it, and others know you are good at it, they will be less likely to pick a fight with you, and there again, you have saved lives.
How this technology is used--whether we go pick fights or not--is decided by the elected representatives of the American people within the legal framework of the constitution. Don't be lulled into your simpleminded, Hollywood scripted conclusions that members of our armed services are a bunch of robot killers. Maybe you also need a little reality check and get past the pop-culture notion that the US is the only aggressive military power in the world.
If the original poster would've looked at the article immediately below the one he's refering to, he'd see that they are talking about increasing money for propulsion programs (among many others). They specifically mentioned solar, nuclear, and other forms of propulsion that have been languishing for decades (particularly nuclear). They also specifically said that this would allow a future Pluto mission to get there quickly (arrival at Pluto happening nearly as quickly as called for by the original plan).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a public affairs website. Everything put on it is carefully screened before it's released to the public. It's fashionable to bash the military and things they spend money on, so they want to have the chance to show themselves and what they're spending money on in a positive light. They want you, (presumeably a taxpayer) to see where your money is going and to convince you it is worthwhile. Maybe if the military gets a chance to give its side of the story, (and people would realize that there really are bad guys out there that occassionally need to be checked), maybe people would feel better about their government. If not, vote. At least they're showing you and giving you the choice.
I don't see any hypocrisy here. We're talking about technology that lets us do our jobs with less net loss of lives. We won't accidentally shoot our allies and comrades, we'll know where refugees are and be able to protect them better, we'll know where our enemy's center of gravity is, which will enable us to achieve victory while actually killing fewer enemy troops, who are quite possibly only doing their job. I don't revel in the thought of killing other people, but war is a reality of the human condition--even if it is one we'd be better off without. Given the reality of war, you are given two choices--be good at it, or suck at it and die (or hope someone who is good at it will stick up for you). If you are good at it, and others know you are good at it, they will be less likely to pick a fight with you, and there again, you have saved lives. How this technology is used--whether we go pick fights or not--is decided by the elected representatives of the American people within the legal framework of the constitution. Don't be lulled into your simpleminded, Hollywood scripted conclusions that members of our armed services are a bunch of robot killers. Maybe you also need a little reality check and get past the pop-culture notion that the US is the only aggressive military power in the world.
Since EMP from nuclear weapons has been a concern for a long time, I can pretty safely say that yes, this stuff is shielded against EMP.
If the original poster would've looked at the article immediately below the one he's refering to, he'd see that they are talking about increasing money for propulsion programs (among many others). They specifically mentioned solar, nuclear, and other forms of propulsion that have been languishing for decades (particularly nuclear). They also specifically said that this would allow a future Pluto mission to get there quickly (arrival at Pluto happening nearly as quickly as called for by the original plan).
If your charter is so damned great, then how did you manage to let your government strip all of your guns?