Ummm, IANALA (I am not a line animal) but I should think that truly fearless super soldiers would be a baaaaaad idea.
Officer: "You guys! Charge through that minefield, dodge the mortar rounds, and take out those machine gunners! Get on with it before it gets dark!" FSS: "Okay!" [kaboom!] Officer: "Dang, I better get some more super soldiers."
No offense meant. It sounded from your post like you did have connectivity, but no browser. [shrug] I've run across folks who were proficient with FTP 10 years ago, but didn't think anyone still ran anon ftp servers. Just jogging the memory.
Uncap your modem, get convicted, go to jail. Okay, I can live with that. Bummer... don't do that.
Be accused of uncapping your modem, get aquitted, and not get your stuff back... now that's just wrong.
Over the last twenty years, the power of law enforcement to seize assets and declare them forfeit WITHOUT A CONVICTION has increased dramatically. In case you're wondering, the vast majority of people who have lost assets to civil forfieture and later been aquitted have NOT had their assets returned.
Mostly, this expansion is due to the drug war; it was introduced as a way to get at "ill-gotten gains". The value of the goods forfeited is often out of all proportion to the value gained through the crime. That in itself may violate the eighth amendment... what chaps my hide is the presumption of guilt inherent to the use of civil forfieture by law enforcement.
Law enforcement makes mistakes, just like everyone else. Given that they are not infalliable, it seems absurd that there is no guaranteed recovery of incorrectly seized assets.
This isn't simply a matter of "your rights online" or a problem with the cable company. It doesn't have anything to do with technology, or even the drug war. This is a matter of your constitutional rights being trampled by government. Learn about it, and vote!
As an aside, when you don't have 5.01 or later it just kills the browser that you do have installed, so it kinda causes a really fun catch-22, no browser to surf the web to find a new browser..... Really sucked.
Well, you know, if'n yer that desperate, try ftp.netscape.com. Remember anonymous FTP?
At both my previous employer and my current one, we were locked into Windows on the desktop by special purpose software.
At my previous employer, an engineering and manufacturing company, it was essential to have the ability to run AutoCAD. (There were also other issues, but they paled compared to this.) Sure, there are other CAD packages, but switching CAD is even more painful than switching OS. [shudder]
If someone can convince Autodesk to port it back to *nix, or if some project like WINE can get it running on a *nix, it'd remove a huge lock-in for Microsoft.
At my current employer, the limitation is a medical records application. It seems entirely unlikely that the vendor will shift platforms. However, I *do* have the option of providing this app via windows terminal services, so a good windows terminal application for a *nix would again create a possibility where none now exists.
Its now illegal to send personally identifiable information via electronic means (such as email).
It is also illegal to send personally identifiable healthcare information on a postcard to a person claiming to be a patient. You're not certain who you're sending it to, and it can be read by anyone handling it. This is not at all different from the process as it exists on paper.
HIPAA Privacy rules are meant to ensure that the intentional disclosure of personal healthcare data happens according to your pre-defined policies. It is actually a lot like ISO9000 in that your certification is not dependent on how stupid your policies are, only that you follow them. (With HIPAA though, there *is* a legal bound on the stupidity of your policies.:)
Okay, I know this sounds wierd, but my HIPAA expert tells me that Privacy and Security are totally different things according to HIPAA. You have *much* less to worry about by next spring than it seems like you might.
(From an IT perspective, one wonders what good privacy without security? For us, if it ain't secure, it's silly to call it private. But HIPAA was not written from an IT perspective...)
The Privacy portion of the rules take effect next spring, and you will have to deal with that. HOWEVER, the privacy rules deal with how you decide who is allowed to see the data, *not* how you protect the data... that's the Security portion of the HIPAA standard. Privacy is about rules and procedures for intentional data disclosure, and data security is NOT within the scope of the Privacy rules.
(So, for instance, HIPAA considers an e-mail over the public internet *private*, so long as you're sure the person you addressed it to is authorized to see the information it contains. Bonkers, but true.)
The HIPAA Security standard will address how you protect your data. It will address security issues from encrypting e-mail in transit to physical security of your data storage. These rules have not yet been published, although they are due at any moment. Once published, we'll have two years to comply... so not before October 2004 will they be in effect.
I advise you to get in touch with your state's medical association and attend their training seminars on HIPAA right away. Make sure to take along the office manager or medical records guru. It's information you WILL need.
Oh, and don't panic.:)
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 1
This is incredibly geeky, even by my standards.
ROFL. And this coming from a guy named "Twirlip of the Mists." Dang, that *is* geeky!
Thank you, I'll be laughing about that for a week.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. The Supremes do not hear cases all year round. Their season runs from October until whenever they get done hearing cases. So odds are, there are no transcripts to be had between last April and last week, because there was nothing to trancribe.
If the other poster was right about a two-week transcript lag, then everything is normal.
Seriously, the reason I mentioned the magnetic field is because (theoretically speaking) if one sets off an Orion pulse unit (also known as a fission bomb) within the magnetic field, it pretty much guarantees that most of the radioactive debris eventually falls into the atmosphere. (I read Mr. Dyson's book, y'see...)
Lighting it off in orbit would drop a small, but non-trivial, amount of radioactive crap on the planet. (A ground launch would, of course, be much worse.) It seems to me that it would save ever so much argument if it were to be boosted out of the field first. An elevator would make this step relatively easy.
Sorry, fella, but we did it. I'm really fond of the ol' USA's principles, but our actions have at times been *far* short of our ideals.
A quick Google for "panama canal overthrow" gives this page at the top of the list: http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/panama.html...from which I take this quote: "In 1903, after Colombia rejected a treaty for U.S. control of the canal zone, the United States sponsored Panama's revolution for independence from Colombia. The United States and Panama quickly agreed upon a treaty in which the United States guaranteed Panama's sovereignty and, in exchange, Panama ceded perpetual use, occupation, and control of the Canal Zone to the United States. Work on the canal began the following year."
If you don't believe me, check it out yourself at any library. It should be easy enough; talk to a reference librarian if you have trouble. I doubt you'll find any reputable historian that will deny this event. (And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what happened September 11, 1973. Hint: It's relevant to your comment, it happened in Santiago, Chile, and it likely involved the CIA.)
At any rate, even the looniest government shouldn't be tempted to do such a thing for a space elevator, because they can just build a floating platform. Heck, they can even contract it out to Halliburton!:)
Once the elevator is built, use it to haul pieces of an Orion craft to the top and assemble it there. When it's ready, let it go, flinging it out of Earth's magnetic field. Once clear, light it up and go see the solar system.
This way there's no radioactive contamination of the atmosphere, minimal risk while getting the "fuel" in orbit, and it's a handy way to get a crapload of plutonium out of our hair.
"one-sided propaganda"? What, as opposed to "fair and balanced propaganda"? [chuckle]
He has a point of view, and he expresses it. This isn't journalism, where balance is a virtue. It's art, where depth of feeling is a virtue. They are very moving works; it's unlikely a viewer will walk away indifferent to the experience. Angry perhaps, but not indifferent.
If you don't like his message about the dangers of technology, perhaps you should see a movie where technology is heroic? How about The Matrix? Oh... wait, no, that's not going to work. Terminator? No, that's no better... Dr. Strangelove? Missed again. Logan's Run? Tron? Gattaca? Minority Report? 2001? Blade Runner? Akira?
Seriously, the *place* really is Wonkers' Corner. On the other hand, the *bar* that sat right there, on Wonkers' family land, was called "Wanker's Corner". For some strange reason, when the lease came up for renewal the Wonker family decided it was time to let some other business be in that spot.:)
So now the "Wanker's Corner bar is several miles away from Wonkers' Corner, in Wilsonville.
Confused yet?
(And yes, it's seriously off-topic. Local interest only. Move along....)
Not the first time, alas!
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This isn't the first time that we've gone off the collective deep end this way. A couple yars ago, I read American Aurora, which tells the story of the 1800 presidential election through the lens of contemporary newspapers. The curtailment of liberty and supression of dissent that went on then are absolutely appalling to me, and probably to any modern westerner.
Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it.:)
> Imagine, a new tax is introduced, so the tax > software has to be changed.
Well, yeah. The capability for future modification certainly is a good idea when choosing software. I wouldn't get software without it. Ultimately, though, that can be a matter of outright competition... it won't need to be mandated.
An example: When I was a drafter, I used AutoCAD because the software is supremely flexible. It is built with customization in mind and includes a built-in programming language. There's really not much that needed doing I couldn't get it to do. Because of their flexible design, I didn't need to see the source for AutoCAD to implement really major customizations.
(Which is a good thing, since Autodesk isn't exactly a fan of software libre. If AutoCAD qualifies by Mr. Perens' standards, it's just barely... their primary format [DWG] is mostly closed, but they have another [DXF] that is mostly open.)
The problem you're addressing isn't one of open/closed source exactly, but of flexiblity. The necessary flexibility could be gained through open source, or by clever software design that supports a great deal of user-definable action. Software that can be customized on the fly by an advanced user, without having to muck around in the source code, is good enough for government work.:)
By all means, the government should not choose software that sucks. I completely agree that inflexibility begets suckage. On the other hand, it should also be recognized that open source is not the only way to gain flexibility, and thus avoid sucking.
However desirable flexible software is, mandating flexibility of design (open source or not) is probably not necessary. It'll sort itself out without much help.
I'm afraid I have to drift a little off topic here for a while. Bear with me for the big finish that ties it all together.:)
Your argument is right, and indeed doesn't go far enough. Government is not the same as the private sector, and analogies comparing the two are generally as dangerous as they are useful.
Government (theoretically) exists for the benefit of the governed. Its job is to serve the governed, who both pay for said services and give government its legitamacy. This (ideally) constrains the behavior of government.
Most corporations are chartered by the government to turn a profit by any legal means. They might choose to operate with an eye to the common good, or they might not. This gives a business a great deal of freedom to act that government does not, and SHOULD not, have.
To say that government should operate like the private sector is to invite the governmental version of a monopoly: the tyrrany. Once that takes hold, there's no SEC to break it up... the solution generally involves blood in the streets. I'll pass, thanks.
Once we dispense with the "government = private sector" fallacy, it's obvious that Mr. Perens has hit on an approach very near the ideal. Mandating open-source does indeed constitute an unwarranted attack on proprietary software, and allowing things to proceed as they are leads us to buy proprietary software to view public documents. Both of these extremes are bad for the people, and thus are bad choices for government.
Everyone who has tried to migrate data from a closed system can appreciate the merit of this proposal. (In fact, there's a lot to be said for adopting large parts of it to corporate use.) Good work, BP! I'll see if I can take this up with my reps in Oregon next session.
As a US Citizen, I consider myself to be (at the very least) a part owner of the Justice Department. If they did buy it out, the better send me a check, or I'm gonna have to call the... uhhh... oh. Hmmm.
I did this myself a couple years ago. I found it not nearly as hard as it seemed back when I was 20, mostly because I did the homework.:)
The best advice I can give you is to get the book "How to Ace Calculus" and follow the advice therein. The book is enlightening, engaging, and even funny.
The author suggests getting out of this treaty, which is allowed with one year's notice. Whether or not one thinks ditching this treaty is a good idea, there's no reason to do it any time soon.
His most compelling reasons to abrogate the treaty are to put the colonists of New California on Mars under the protection of the US Constitution, and allow them to become the 51st state of the Union.
Now, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps he's getting a little ahead of himself here. Wouldn't it be a bit more sensible to wait until there ARE some American colonists on Mars, first? The time to get free of the treaty is less than the current transit time to Mars, for goodness sake. Surely there's no need to hurry...
I don't think bandwidth is going to be more important in air-to-air operations than in ground ops. I suspect it's backwards, even... in ground ops distinguishing the target from the environment is going to be a lot harder than in air ops, and that's a tough task for computers to do autonomously.
I think they'll really be nasty in air-to-air operations. Without a human pilot, these suckers are not going to be limited to a mere 6 or 8 gees. Once the engineers figure out how to maintain control at higher accelerations, I expect they'll be designing UCAVs to pull 12 gees or more. Add to that enough brains to fly some autonomous evasion rules, and these things are going to be very survivable.
A scenario: Fly your unmanned swarm into the opposing manned formation, and let them all (autonomously) fly for position. They won't all get good position on the enemy; they won't even all survive necessarily. But your battle manager can see when one does get good position, and assign a pilot to take telepresence control of it. He jumps in and flies it until he gets a shot or loses position. When it's no longer in good position, the pilot flits to another UCAV in a better spot, while the machine reverts to autonomous operation to work for position again. Done right, you can probably have three or four drones per pilot.
Of course, there's nothing preventing the other guys from doing this, too...
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, IANALA (I am not a line animal) but I should think that truly fearless super soldiers would be a baaaaaad idea.
Officer: "You guys! Charge through that minefield, dodge the mortar rounds, and take out those machine gunners! Get on with it before it gets dark!"
FSS: "Okay!" [kaboom!]
Officer: "Dang, I better get some more super soldiers."
No offense meant. It sounded from your post like you did have connectivity, but no browser. [shrug] I've run across folks who were proficient with FTP 10 years ago, but didn't think anyone still ran anon ftp servers. Just jogging the memory.
Uncap your modem, get convicted, go to jail. Okay, I can live with that. Bummer... don't do that.
Be accused of uncapping your modem, get aquitted, and not get your stuff back... now that's just wrong.
Over the last twenty years, the power of law enforcement to seize assets and declare them forfeit WITHOUT A CONVICTION has increased dramatically. In case you're wondering, the vast majority of people who have lost assets to civil forfieture and later been aquitted have NOT had their assets returned.
Mostly, this expansion is due to the drug war; it was introduced as a way to get at "ill-gotten gains". The value of the goods forfeited is often out of all proportion to the value gained through the crime. That in itself may violate the eighth amendment... what chaps my hide is the presumption of guilt inherent to the use of civil forfieture by law enforcement.
Law enforcement makes mistakes, just like everyone else. Given that they are not infalliable, it seems absurd that there is no guaranteed recovery of incorrectly seized assets.
This isn't simply a matter of "your rights online" or a problem with the cable company. It doesn't have anything to do with technology, or even the drug war. This is a matter of your constitutional rights being trampled by government. Learn about it, and vote!
A good resource: Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure
Well, you know, if'n yer that desperate, try ftp.netscape.com. Remember anonymous FTP?
At both my previous employer and my current one, we were locked into Windows on the desktop by special purpose software.
At my previous employer, an engineering and manufacturing company, it was essential to have the ability to run AutoCAD. (There were also other issues, but they paled compared to this.) Sure, there are other CAD packages, but switching CAD is even more painful than switching OS. [shudder]
If someone can convince Autodesk to port it back to *nix, or if some project like WINE can get it running on a *nix, it'd remove a huge lock-in for Microsoft.
At my current employer, the limitation is a medical records application. It seems entirely unlikely that the vendor will shift platforms. However, I *do* have the option of providing this app via windows terminal services, so a good windows terminal application for a *nix would again create a possibility where none now exists.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt for people who bought into the new license scheme.
Hopefully they'll both come through okay.
Its now illegal to send personally identifiable information via electronic means (such as email).
:)
It is also illegal to send personally identifiable healthcare information on a postcard to a person claiming to be a patient. You're not certain who you're sending it to, and it can be read by anyone handling it. This is not at all different from the process as it exists on paper.
HIPAA Privacy rules are meant to ensure that the intentional disclosure of personal healthcare data happens according to your pre-defined policies. It is actually a lot like ISO9000 in that your certification is not dependent on how stupid your policies are, only that you follow them. (With HIPAA though, there *is* a legal bound on the stupidity of your policies.
Okay, I know this sounds wierd, but my HIPAA expert tells me that Privacy and Security are totally different things according to HIPAA. You have *much* less to worry about by next spring than it seems like you might.
:)
(From an IT perspective, one wonders what good privacy without security? For us, if it ain't secure, it's silly to call it private. But HIPAA was not written from an IT perspective...)
The Privacy portion of the rules take effect next spring, and you will have to deal with that. HOWEVER, the privacy rules deal with how you decide who is allowed to see the data, *not* how you protect the data... that's the Security portion of the HIPAA standard. Privacy is about rules and procedures for intentional data disclosure, and data security is NOT within the scope of the Privacy rules.
(So, for instance, HIPAA considers an e-mail over the public internet *private*, so long as you're sure the person you addressed it to is authorized to see the information it contains. Bonkers, but true.)
The HIPAA Security standard will address how you protect your data. It will address security issues from encrypting e-mail in transit to physical security of your data storage. These rules have not yet been published, although they are due at any moment. Once published, we'll have two years to comply... so not before October 2004 will they be in effect.
I advise you to get in touch with your state's medical association and attend their training seminars on HIPAA right away. Make sure to take along the office manager or medical records guru. It's information you WILL need.
Oh, and don't panic.
This is incredibly geeky, even by my standards.
ROFL. And this coming from a guy named "Twirlip of the Mists." Dang, that *is* geeky!
Thank you, I'll be laughing about that for a week.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. The Supremes do not hear cases all year round. Their season runs from October until whenever they get done hearing cases. So odds are, there are no transcripts to be had between last April and last week, because there was nothing to trancribe.
:)
If the other poster was right about a two-week transcript lag, then everything is normal.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Heh. Maybe some genetically engineered bamboo?
Seriously, the reason I mentioned the magnetic field is because (theoretically speaking) if one sets off an Orion pulse unit (also known as a fission bomb) within the magnetic field, it pretty much guarantees that most of the radioactive debris eventually falls into the atmosphere. (I read Mr. Dyson's book, y'see...)
Lighting it off in orbit would drop a small, but non-trivial, amount of radioactive crap on the planet. (A ground launch would, of course, be much worse.) It seems to me that it would save ever so much argument if it were to be boosted out of the field first. An elevator would make this step relatively easy.
Sorry, fella, but we did it. I'm really fond of the ol' USA's principles, but our actions have at times been *far* short of our ideals.
...from which I take this quote: "In 1903, after Colombia rejected a treaty for U.S. control of the canal zone, the United States sponsored Panama's revolution for independence from Colombia. The United States and Panama quickly agreed upon a treaty in which the United States guaranteed Panama's sovereignty and, in exchange, Panama ceded perpetual use, occupation, and control of the Canal Zone to the United States. Work on the canal began the following year."
:)
A quick Google for "panama canal overthrow" gives this page at the top of the list: http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/panama.html
If you don't believe me, check it out yourself at any library. It should be easy enough; talk to a reference librarian if you have trouble. I doubt you'll find any reputable historian that will deny this event. (And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what happened September 11, 1973. Hint: It's relevant to your comment, it happened in Santiago, Chile, and it likely involved the CIA.)
At any rate, even the looniest government shouldn't be tempted to do such a thing for a space elevator, because they can just build a floating platform. Heck, they can even contract it out to Halliburton!
Why stop with one seemingly improbable concept?
Once the elevator is built, use it to haul pieces of an Orion craft to the top and assemble it there. When it's ready, let it go, flinging it out of Earth's magnetic field. Once clear, light it up and go see the solar system.
This way there's no radioactive contamination of the atmosphere, minimal risk while getting the "fuel" in orbit, and it's a handy way to get a crapload of plutonium out of our hair.
Saturn in fifteen years, anyone?
"one-sided propaganda"? What, as opposed to "fair and balanced propaganda"? [chuckle]
He has a point of view, and he expresses it. This isn't journalism, where balance is a virtue. It's art, where depth of feeling is a virtue. They are very moving works; it's unlikely a viewer will walk away indifferent to the experience. Angry perhaps, but not indifferent.
If you don't like his message about the dangers of technology, perhaps you should see a movie where technology is heroic? How about The Matrix? Oh... wait, no, that's not going to work. Terminator? No, that's no better... Dr. Strangelove? Missed again. Logan's Run? Tron? Gattaca? Minority Report? 2001? Blade Runner? Akira?
Perhaps Mr. Reggio isn't alone in his view?
Seriously, the *place* really is Wonkers' Corner. On the other hand, the *bar* that sat right there, on Wonkers' family land, was called "Wanker's Corner". For some strange reason, when the lease came up for renewal the Wonker family decided it was time to let some other business be in that spot. :)
So now the "Wanker's Corner bar is several miles away from Wonkers' Corner, in Wilsonville.
Confused yet?
(And yes, it's seriously off-topic. Local interest only. Move along....)
This isn't the first time that we've gone off the collective deep end this way. A couple yars ago, I read American Aurora, which tells the story of the 1800 presidential election through the lens of contemporary newspapers. The curtailment of liberty and supression of dissent that went on then are absolutely appalling to me, and probably to any modern westerner.
:)
Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
> Imagine, a new tax is introduced, so the tax
:)
> software has to be changed.
Well, yeah. The capability for future modification certainly is a good idea when choosing software. I wouldn't get software without it. Ultimately, though, that can be a matter of outright competition... it won't need to be mandated.
An example: When I was a drafter, I used AutoCAD because the software is supremely flexible. It is built with customization in mind and includes a built-in programming language. There's really not much that needed doing I couldn't get it to do. Because of their flexible design, I didn't need to see the source for AutoCAD to implement really major customizations.
(Which is a good thing, since Autodesk isn't exactly a fan of software libre. If AutoCAD qualifies by Mr. Perens' standards, it's just barely... their primary format [DWG] is mostly closed, but they have another [DXF] that is mostly open.)
The problem you're addressing isn't one of open/closed source exactly, but of flexiblity. The necessary flexibility could be gained through open source, or by clever software design that supports a great deal of user-definable action. Software that can be customized on the fly by an advanced user, without having to muck around in the source code, is good enough for government work.
By all means, the government should not choose software that sucks. I completely agree that inflexibility begets suckage. On the other hand, it should also be recognized that open source is not the only way to gain flexibility, and thus avoid sucking.
However desirable flexible software is, mandating flexibility of design (open source or not) is probably not necessary. It'll sort itself out without much help.
I'm afraid I have to drift a little off topic here for a while. Bear with me for the big finish that ties it all together. :)
Your argument is right, and indeed doesn't go far enough. Government is not the same as the private sector, and analogies comparing the two are generally as dangerous as they are useful.
Government (theoretically) exists for the benefit of the governed. Its job is to serve the governed, who both pay for said services and give government its legitamacy. This (ideally) constrains the behavior of government.
Most corporations are chartered by the government to turn a profit by any legal means. They might choose to operate with an eye to the common good, or they might not. This gives a business a great deal of freedom to act that government does not, and SHOULD not, have.
To say that government should operate like the private sector is to invite the governmental version of a monopoly: the tyrrany. Once that takes hold, there's no SEC to break it up... the solution generally involves blood in the streets. I'll pass, thanks.
Once we dispense with the "government = private sector" fallacy, it's obvious that Mr. Perens has hit on an approach very near the ideal. Mandating open-source does indeed constitute an unwarranted attack on proprietary software, and allowing things to proceed as they are leads us to buy proprietary software to view public documents. Both of these extremes are bad for the people, and thus are bad choices for government.
Everyone who has tried to migrate data from a closed system can appreciate the merit of this proposal. (In fact, there's a lot to be said for adopting large parts of it to corporate use.) Good work, BP! I'll see if I can take this up with my reps in Oregon next session.
Are you sure that wasn't Walden College? It sounds right up their alley.
:)
Someone needs to tell Mr. Trudeau so he can mock this.
As a US Citizen, I consider myself to be (at the very least) a part owner of the Justice Department. If they did buy it out, the better send me a check, or I'm gonna have to call the... uhhh... oh. Hmmm.
:)
Maybe I'll have to call the NRA instead.
It brings to mind the July 8th cartoon from PvP Online.
Even funnier, though, is what I found when I hit google with "uber gulp".
Eeeek.
I did this myself a couple years ago. I found it not nearly as hard as it seemed back when I was 20, mostly because I did the homework. :)
The best advice I can give you is to get the book "How to Ace Calculus" and follow the advice therein. The book is enlightening, engaging, and even funny.
How much did Deep Thought cost to build, just to cough up 42? That was one mighty darn expensive byte...
The author suggests getting out of this treaty, which is allowed with one year's notice. Whether or not one thinks ditching this treaty is a good idea, there's no reason to do it any time soon.
His most compelling reasons to abrogate the treaty are to put the colonists of New California on Mars under the protection of the US Constitution, and allow them to become the 51st state of the Union.
Now, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps he's getting a little ahead of himself here. Wouldn't it be a bit more sensible to wait until there ARE some American colonists on Mars, first? The time to get free of the treaty is less than the current transit time to Mars, for goodness sake. Surely there's no need to hurry...
I don't think bandwidth is going to be more important in air-to-air operations than in ground ops. I suspect it's backwards, even... in ground ops distinguishing the target from the environment is going to be a lot harder than in air ops, and that's a tough task for computers to do autonomously.
I think they'll really be nasty in air-to-air operations. Without a human pilot, these suckers are not going to be limited to a mere 6 or 8 gees. Once the engineers figure out how to maintain control at higher accelerations, I expect they'll be designing UCAVs to pull 12 gees or more. Add to that enough brains to fly some autonomous evasion rules, and these things are going to be very survivable.
A scenario: Fly your unmanned swarm into the opposing manned formation, and let them all (autonomously) fly for position. They won't all get good position on the enemy; they won't even all survive necessarily. But your battle manager can see when one does get good position, and assign a pilot to take telepresence control of it. He jumps in and flies it until he gets a shot or loses position. When it's no longer in good position, the pilot flits to another UCAV in a better spot, while the machine reverts to autonomous operation to work for position again. Done right, you can probably have three or four drones per pilot.
Of course, there's nothing preventing the other guys from doing this, too...