No matter what technical solution you end up with, if it takes you nine years to switch to a new platform, you can be pretty damn certain where you ended up isn't where you want to be or should be.
Yeah. Whoever tied them into a Microsoft contract that took nine years to escape from should be fired, pilloried, drawn and quartered, staked out on a fire ant hill, etc.
Why would he be arrested? He did something that the U.S. government really wished he hadn't done but he is not a U.S. citizen. He was under no legal obligation to not publish any of the documents Bradley Manning passed to him (or anything else). The Brits have different secrecy laws and THEY can arrest him for publishing anything that they regard as secret (Official Secrets Act or something like that) or on the Sweedish rape charge. The U.S. is under no obligation to arrest him in that matter although we cooperate with various European countries (e.g., bilateral extradition treaties) so we might.
So other than all of the people who have watched too many spy movies, how would he be arrested, subject to rendition, disappeared, etc? Other than the terrorists that we deal rather harshly with under the term "illegal combatant", can anyone give me a documented example of a private citizen of another coutry who got shipped to Gitmo? Especially, a high profile private citizen like Mr Assange? The U.S. government may not like him but he would be subject to due process under the law.
Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
But that's why we are arguing in different directions. For me, any substitute for wine (or good beer, or single malt scotch, etc.) has to taste like the original. I consume those beverages for the taste; not the alcohol. Likewise, I don't consume the substitutes I mentioned for non-alcoholic items even though they are less expensive, more convenient, etc. My reason for mentioning these items was to make the point that I (and lots of other people) will not consume the substitute even if it eliminates some of the bad side effects of "real" alcoholic beverages.
Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
But that is an extremely important point that you are missing. I chose the examples to be substitutes that are claimed to be "just as good as the real thing." They're not. Likewise, I would be very surprised if someone could come up with a "carrier" that imitates good wine, beer, etc. for Prof. Nut's alcohol substitute. That his alcohol substitute is not alcohol is not the point. It's the flavor of the beverage and whether that beverage tastes as good as the "real thing" that matters.
So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
But for this substance to be at all of interest to me or a lot of other people, the imitation of taste is the only factor that matters. If you can't provide the same taste and experience, all Prof. Nut is doing is creating yet another recreational drug. It just happens to be suitable for consumption as a beverage as opposed to taking a pill or something that is injected.
How about some less emotionally charged examples? Here are a few:
Filet Mignon (or any decent steak) vs. pink slime Fresh tuna steak vs. canned tuna Wild caught sockey or king salmon vs. farm raised Atlantic salmon Real half and half vs. Coffeemate liquid (or similar) Real whipped cream vs. Coolwhip (or similar) Real mashed potatoes vs. Instant mashed potatoes Real rice vs. minute rice Real oatmeal vs. instant oatmeal
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point. Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques but the taste and texture difference is huge. So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute. No positive or negative asociations here just I tried stuff from both columns and found the stuff in the right column wanting.
I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good"....
Sorry, I don't buy it. The easy counter-example is a wine tasting of several different wines with different prices. I will like some and not like others due to characteristics of the wine and what I like and don't like will probably not correlate to the price. Each wine will have its own distinct flavor and characteristics because of possibly different varietals (type of grape), different wine making techniques, different micro-climates where the grapes are grown, different soils, etc. This is true even when the wines are all of the same varietal. You can also run the same tasting experiment using the same vineyard but across different vintages and have the same result: I will like some better than others.
No conditioning involved. No differential association of one wine with having fun at a party and another having a horrible time. Likewise, while I enjoy some excellent wines, my observation is that you can always find an excellent wine if you spend enough. Much more interesting is trying various inexpensive and moderately priced wines to find the hidden gems. One of my favorite table wines at the moment is a $6.99 a bottle blend from the Puglia region of Italy. Quite yummy and dirt cheap. The only down side of this is you try a lot of plonk between the gems.
Left Hand Brewing Company' Milk Stout New Belgium 1554 Black Ale Deschutes Black Butte Porter Deschutes Obsdian Stout
We like a few others but have trouble finding them.
The only time I drink yellow, fizzy beer is when I'm working outdoors in the summer. I still enjoy the German bob-sledder's comment at the Utah Olympics: "American beer is proof that you can dilute water."
I know it's a rhetorical question but can't stand not answering with a decided *NO*. I've tried both "near beer" and "non-alcoholic wine" and neither tastes anything like the real thing. They aren't even poor substitutes; they're horrible.
Professor Nut seems to think that the only reason people drink is to get drunk. He definitely needs to expand his circle of drinking companions as well as what he drinks.
Lastly, I would be afraid that his cure would be worse than the disease. This sounds like the next "date rape" drug.
Utah is nice (similar climate to Colorado) but the Mormons tend to be a little overbearing. I'm a wino and a coffee addict so there would be some issues with my habits. Washington could be OK but depends on where. I get depressed when we have a cloudy day here so Seattle and such doesn't work for me. Hawaii is nice but expensive. Not sure I could handle living on an island. I like long road trips just to go someplace and see it or just for the drive.
For what it's worth, I'm seeing the NSA recruiting advertisement here on/. at the moment.
My only reason for not wanting to work for the NSA is their location. I'll take the thin, dry air of Colorado over the thick, humid stuff in northern Virginia, thank you very much.
If you hadn't pointed this out, I was going to. Actually, I think HHGG did a great job of optimally hitting each media it was released in. The radio show was a good radio show but had to do things differently than the TV show which ws a good TV show but did things differently than the print version which was a hilarious read but did things differently than the movie which wasn't bad considering all of the legacy media versions that were released before the movie. Each presentation followed the same basic plot but added or subtracted depending on the limitations and capabilities of the media.
Bottom line: different media require different approaches to telling the same story. I prefer books because the only limitations to what is coveyed are the author's ability to tell the story and the reader's ability to imagine it. Visual media tries to make up for this with spectactular special effects and is usually found wanting for real substance. I'd much rather know what's going on in the protagonist's head then see yet another CGI explosion. Oddly, radio seemed to recognize the limitations of audio only and not attempt to overcompensate.
... Does Montana still have no speed limit during the day?
Sadly, no. Just dug up the detail for part of a reply to the/. article about the guy who drove across the U.S. in record time but very illegally. After the 55 mph national speed limit was abolished, Montana reverted to their pre-1973 limit of "reasonable and proper''. This left it to the police to decide what was ''reasonable and proper'' which someone decided was now too vague so they went with the standard 75 mph on interstates and a slightly above standard 70 mph on state roads.
The October issue of Air & Space Magazine had an interesting article on an earlier attempt to get John Q.Public flying instead of driving. Hint: the problem isn't the cost of the vehicle.
I almost moved to Montana when they reverted to their ''reasonable and proper'' speed limit. Too bad they decided that it was to vague to be enforceable and went back to a numeric limit (75 mph on the interstates, 70 mph on state roads). Even if it's not stringently enforced, I hate the idea of turning lots of otherwise law-abiding people into law breakers.
The goofy thing is that nothing has changed. It's up to the police to decide whether or not to enforce the limit just like when it was up to the cop to deicde what was ''reasonable and proper''.
That makes at least two of us. Most of my commute is on a rural Intersate where the posted speed is 75 mph. It never fails that there is always some idiot driving a vehicle that might be able to do 65 mph going downhill with a tailwind trying to pass some other idiot in a vehicle that can't do 55 mph going downhill and with a tailwind. And then they stay in the fast lane until at least 20 cars have passed them on the right and it eventually dawns on them that they should be in the slow lane.
Could depend on the airplane, altitude, distance to a cell tower (besides altitude), etc. As an example, the building I work in has really spotty cell phone coverage that doesn't seem to be predictable (e.g., I go from no bars to three bars to one bar in a small area next to a glass door entrance with one bar being next to the door and three bars being in just the right place a little back from the doors). I'm sure some RF engineer can explain it but being closer to out of the building doesn't mean more bars.
When I heard the explanation I posted, it wasn't clear whether they were referring to the entire flight or just take off and landing, etc. On a similar note, I wonder how many people keep their Kindle "whisper net" on all of the time including when flying which would have the same effect as having a cell phone turned on. Ditto for any of the other e-readers.
there is no way you will get a connection to a tower at 35000 feet moving at 500mph
Yes you can. If you will recall, this was proven on 9/11/2001.
The prohibition on using cell phones was also at the request of the wireless carriers. The cellular system was not designed to handle someone using their phone at 35,000 fett and traveling at 500 mph. Your phone "sees" way too many towers and yet the towers have to hand off rapidly since you move out of coverage really fast at that speed. Seven miles up in an airplane is not that far from a tower and the signal is excellent.
It's easier to "just say no" than it is to re-engineer the cellular network to also work with people using their phones in airplanes. Besides, the airlines want you to use their skyphone at their rates so it's in their interest to keep you from using your cell phone instead.
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
Supposedly said by Everett Dirksen when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. There seems to be some question as to whether he actually said it but there are lots of sources that attribute it to him. Unfortunately, the archives for the Tonight Show don't go back far enough to include his appearance.
I'm familiar with that. Didn't really want to muddy the waters by pointing that example out. Also, I think the technology at the time was only barely capable of just flying the plane by remote control once the crew had bailed out. The goal of the target drones was to actually provide a reasonable approximation of a "live" target (as compared to the old target sleeves and such).
Big difference though between just controlling an airplane by remote radio and being able to effectively deliver ordnance from a remotely piloted vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Hope someone lost their job over that ...
No matter what technical solution you end up with, if it takes you nine years to switch to a new platform, you can be pretty damn certain where you ended up isn't where you want to be or should be.
Yeah. Whoever tied them into a Microsoft contract that took nine years to escape from should be fired, pilloried, drawn and quartered, staked out on a fire ant hill, etc.
Cheers,
Dave
Tell us how you REALLY feel about Exchange. We can take it.
Cheers,
Dave
Why would he be arrested? He did something that the U.S. government really wished he hadn't done but he is not a U.S. citizen. He was under no legal obligation to not publish any of the documents Bradley Manning passed to him (or anything else). The Brits have different secrecy laws and THEY can arrest him for publishing anything that they regard as secret (Official Secrets Act or something like that) or on the Sweedish rape charge. The U.S. is under no obligation to arrest him in that matter although we cooperate with various European countries (e.g., bilateral extradition treaties) so we might.
So other than all of the people who have watched too many spy movies, how would he be arrested, subject to rendition, disappeared, etc? Other than the terrorists that we deal rather harshly with under the term "illegal combatant", can anyone give me a documented example of a private citizen of another coutry who got shipped to Gitmo? Especially, a high profile private citizen like Mr Assange? The U.S. government may not like him but he would be subject to due process under the law.
Cheers,
Dave
They preserved the same consistent process. Let's hear it for repeatable software processes.
Cheers,
Dave
The oldest animal on Earth that we know of was killed. I'm sure there's lots of older stuff out there that we just aren't aware of.
Hush. Now someone is going to go out, find it and kill it. Then probably say, "Yeah, that clam wasn't theoldest living animal. This was."
Cheers,
Dave
How about some less emotionally charged examples?
Can you give examples of examples I gave that you deem "emotionally charged"?
Some brand examples you give are not available in market I frequent, so can't say much about them. Rest seem to be focussed on convenience / shelf life. Nutt is talking about neither of these, so you'd have to explain why these examples are relevant. If lack of harmful effects is being considered a form of "convenience", it is very very different type of convenience from that of your examples. Almost opposite, as your example "substitutes" are generally accepted to have more harmful health effects , or at least less good effects, than the original. Being not "fresh", or "natural" etc.
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point
Sure. Make a different point than what we are discussing.
But that's why we are arguing in different directions. For me, any substitute for wine (or good beer, or single malt scotch, etc.) has to taste like the original. I consume those beverages for the taste; not the alcohol. Likewise, I don't consume the substitutes I mentioned for non-alcoholic items even though they are less expensive, more convenient, etc. My reason for mentioning these items was to make the point that I (and lots of other people) will not consume the substitute even if it eliminates some of the bad side effects of "real" alcoholic beverages.
Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques
On the other hand, this new substance Dr Nutt is talking about is very easy to tell from presently available alcoholic drinks using laboratory techniques. Look ma - no alcohol. So you might want to change your examples?
But that is an extremely important point that you are missing. I chose the examples to be substitutes that are claimed to be "just as good as the real thing." They're not. Likewise, I would be very surprised if someone could come up with a "carrier" that imitates good wine, beer, etc. for Prof. Nut's alcohol substitute. That his alcohol substitute is not alcohol is not the point. It's the flavor of the beverage and whether that beverage tastes as good as the "real thing" that matters.
So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute
This is not necessarily an imitation in taste. This is an imitation in intoxication. So if it turns out to be undetectable by taste/texture/finish etc., you could add it to a non-alcoholic drink/food that is known to be extremely tasty, and get the effect of taste (of the other food/drink) and intoxication (from this new substance) - 2 in 1. Consumeristic society just laps up 2 in 1, right?
Why do you presume it must taste like wine to be tasty? If you think wine (alcoholic beverage, in general) is the only tasty substance ever invented, you have a lot to explore in the taste buds department despite your claims to the contrary. And if not, objecting to an unknown (yet) substance with an unknown (obviously) taste is highly premature.
Yes, if you drink a non-alcoholic substance with an expectation of taste/flavour/finish of an alcoholic substance - you are going to be disappointed. But it is the expectation that is wrong, not the substance.
But for this substance to be at all of interest to me or a lot of other people, the imitation of taste is the only factor that matters. If you can't provide the same taste and experience, all Prof. Nut is doing is creating yet another recreational drug. It just happens to be suitable for consumption as a beverage as opposed to taking a pill or something that is injected.
How about some less emotionally charged examples? Here are a few:
Filet Mignon (or any decent steak) vs. pink slime
Fresh tuna steak vs. canned tuna
Wild caught sockey or king salmon vs. farm raised Atlantic salmon
Real half and half vs. Coffeemate liquid (or similar)
Real whipped cream vs. Coolwhip (or similar)
Real mashed potatoes vs. Instant mashed potatoes
Real rice vs. minute rice
Real oatmeal vs. instant oatmeal
I could go on for quite a while with the "real" vs. instant/convenient but I think this list is sufficient to make the point. Several of the items in the list would be very difficult to tell from their right hand column counterpart using laboratory techniques but the taste and texture difference is huge. So, it isn't just wine (or alcoholic beverages in general) that we're talking about here. There are lots of things where the imitation is, at best, a poor substitute. No positive or negative asociations here just I tried stuff from both columns and found the stuff in the right column wanting.
I can only hope that Prof. Nut's reserach gets nominated for a Ig Nobel. He desrves it.
Cheers,
Dave
Possibly they understand the reason behind the "taste". Lots of food items could taste horrible by themselves. Put another way, good and bad taste are just our interpretation of the taste.
It is the positive association with satiation that makes us think it tastes "good". ...
Sorry, I don't buy it. The easy counter-example is a wine tasting of several different wines with different prices. I will like some and not like others due to characteristics of the wine and what I like and don't like will probably not correlate to the price. Each wine will have its own distinct flavor and characteristics because of possibly different varietals (type of grape), different wine making techniques, different micro-climates where the grapes are grown, different soils, etc. This is true even when the wines are all of the same varietal. You can also run the same tasting experiment using the same vineyard but across different vintages and have the same result: I will like some better than others.
No conditioning involved. No differential association of one wine with having fun at a party and another having a horrible time. Likewise, while I enjoy some excellent wines, my observation is that you can always find an excellent wine if you spend enough. Much more interesting is trying various inexpensive and moderately priced wines to find the hidden gems. One of my favorite table wines at the moment is a $6.99 a bottle blend from the Puglia region of Italy. Quite yummy and dirt cheap. The only down side of this is you try a lot of plonk between the gems.
Cheers,
Dave
"Beer" selection here usually consists of:
Left Hand Brewing Company' Milk Stout
New Belgium 1554 Black Ale
Deschutes Black Butte Porter
Deschutes Obsdian Stout
We like a few others but have trouble finding them.
The only time I drink yellow, fizzy beer is when I'm working outdoors in the summer. I still enjoy the German bob-sledder's comment at the Utah Olympics: "American beer is proof that you can dilute water."
Cheers,
Dave
And I would buy the $30 glass of Opus One (depending on the vintage, of course).
This also replies to the idiot you were replying to. Some people have no taste and can't understand people who do.
Cheers,
Dave
Will Prof Nut's concoction taste this good?
I know it's a rhetorical question but can't stand not answering with a decided *NO*. I've tried both "near beer" and "non-alcoholic wine" and neither tastes anything like the real thing. They aren't even poor substitutes; they're horrible.
Professor Nut seems to think that the only reason people drink is to get drunk. He definitely needs to expand his circle of drinking companions as well as what he drinks.
Lastly, I would be afraid that his cure would be worse than the disease. This sounds like the next "date rape" drug.
Cheers,
Dave
Utah is nice (similar climate to Colorado) but the Mormons tend to be a little overbearing. I'm a wino and a coffee addict so there would be some issues with my habits. Washington could be OK but depends on where. I get depressed when we have a cloudy day here so Seattle and such doesn't work for me. Hawaii is nice but expensive. Not sure I could handle living on an island. I like long road trips just to go someplace and see it or just for the drive.
Cheers,
Dave
For what it's worth, I'm seeing the NSA recruiting advertisement here on /. at the moment.
My only reason for not wanting to work for the NSA is their location. I'll take the thin, dry air of Colorado over the thick, humid stuff in northern Virginia, thank you very much.
Cheers,
Dave
If you hadn't pointed this out, I was going to. Actually, I think HHGG did a great job of optimally hitting each media it was released in. The radio show was a good radio show but had to do things differently than the TV show which ws a good TV show but did things differently than the print version which was a hilarious read but did things differently than the movie which wasn't bad considering all of the legacy media versions that were released before the movie. Each presentation followed the same basic plot but added or subtracted depending on the limitations and capabilities of the media.
Bottom line: different media require different approaches to telling the same story. I prefer books because the only limitations to what is coveyed are the author's ability to tell the story and the reader's ability to imagine it. Visual media tries to make up for this with spectactular special effects and is usually found wanting for real substance. I'd much rather know what's going on in the protagonist's head then see yet another CGI explosion. Oddly, radio seemed to recognize the limitations of audio only and not attempt to overcompensate.
Cheers,
Dave
...
Does Montana still have no speed limit during the day?
Sadly, no. Just dug up the detail for part of a reply to the /. article about the guy who drove across the U.S. in record time but very illegally. After the 55 mph national speed limit was abolished, Montana reverted to their pre-1973 limit of "reasonable and proper''. This left it to the police to decide what was ''reasonable and proper'' which someone decided was now too vague so they went with the standard 75 mph on interstates and a slightly above standard 70 mph on state roads.
Cheers,
Dave
The October issue of Air & Space Magazine had an interesting article on an earlier attempt to get John Q.Public flying instead of driving. Hint: the problem isn't the cost of the vehicle.
Cheers,
Dave
I almost moved to Montana when they reverted to their ''reasonable and proper'' speed limit. Too bad they decided that it was to vague to be enforceable and went back to a numeric limit (75 mph on the interstates, 70 mph on state roads). Even if it's not stringently enforced, I hate the idea of turning lots of otherwise law-abiding people into law breakers.
The goofy thing is that nothing has changed. It's up to the police to decide whether or not to enforce the limit just like when it was up to the cop to deicde what was ''reasonable and proper''.
Cheers,
Dave
That makes at least two of us. Most of my commute is on a rural Intersate where the posted speed is 75 mph. It never fails that there is always some idiot driving a vehicle that might be able to do 65 mph going downhill with a tailwind trying to pass some other idiot in a vehicle that can't do 55 mph going downhill and with a tailwind. And then they stay in the fast lane until at least 20 cars have passed them on the right and it eventually dawns on them that they should be in the slow lane.
*S*I*G*H*
Cheers,
Dave
Could depend on the airplane, altitude, distance to a cell tower (besides altitude), etc. As an example, the building I work in has really spotty cell phone coverage that doesn't seem to be predictable (e.g., I go from no bars to three bars to one bar in a small area next to a glass door entrance with one bar being next to the door and three bars being in just the right place a little back from the doors). I'm sure some RF engineer can explain it but being closer to out of the building doesn't mean more bars.
When I heard the explanation I posted, it wasn't clear whether they were referring to the entire flight or just take off and landing, etc. On a similar note, I wonder how many people keep their Kindle "whisper net" on all of the time including when flying which would have the same effect as having a cell phone turned on. Ditto for any of the other e-readers.
Cheers,
Dave
there is no way you will get a connection to a tower at 35000 feet moving at 500mph
Yes you can. If you will recall, this was proven on 9/11/2001.
The prohibition on using cell phones was also at the request of the wireless carriers. The cellular system was not designed to handle someone using their phone at 35,000 fett and traveling at 500 mph. Your phone "sees" way too many towers and yet the towers have to hand off rapidly since you move out of coverage really fast at that speed. Seven miles up in an airplane is not that far from a tower and the signal is excellent.
It's easier to "just say no" than it is to re-engineer the cellular network to also work with people using their phones in airplanes. Besides, the airlines want you to use their skyphone at their rates so it's in their interest to keep you from using your cell phone instead.
Cheers,
Dave
We don't need no steenking process!!!!
Cheers,
Dave
"To enjoy the full flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks."
-- Lazarus Long (so really Robert Heinlein)
Cheers,
Dave
Given that the GP suggested the abolishment of currency, I'm pretty sure you're begging the question.
But begging the question is still better than begging for food.
Cheers,
Dave
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
Supposedly said by Everett Dirksen when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. There seems to be some question as to whether he actually said it but there are lots of sources that attribute it to him. Unfortunately, the archives for the Tonight Show don't go back far enough to include his appearance.
Cheers,
Dave
I'm familiar with that. Didn't really want to muddy the waters by pointing that example out. Also, I think the technology at the time was only barely capable of just flying the plane by remote control once the crew had bailed out. The goal of the target drones was to actually provide a reasonable approximation of a "live" target (as compared to the old target sleeves and such).
Big difference though between just controlling an airplane by remote radio and being able to effectively deliver ordnance from a remotely piloted vehicle.
Cheers,
Dave