It wasn't even because ME was bad, particularly, just that journalists are cottoning on to the fact that its not the groundbreaking event that they thought 95 would be.
I agree that ME was better than 98, though not dramatically so. What I wonder about though, is whether journalists are more keyed to the look of the system. It wouldn't surprise me if the standard media judges software to be "groundbreaking" primarily based on whether it looks and feels different rather than whether it has exceptionally more functionality.
Realistically the changes to style and design should be weighted as some of the biggest differences over Win2K, so perhaps MS is counting on that to boost sales and hype among the ignorant. Surprising really, that it's been this long since a makeover.
These little boxes are marketed as "cheap" PC alternatives. In which case they are looking at a segment of society that typically doesn't have computers and isn't too interested in them. These are people who probably grow up with little exposure to computers and don't use them at work. Without a printer, they don't make a good word processor, so they lack an important PC functuality.
Now the real question is whether there is a use for the internet with people that don't want a real PC. Seems to me the answer is no. Email and internet access are useful to the tech savvy and those of us who are used to them, but people can still survive in blissful ignorance without them. Seems to me that there is just no market where these things are targetted, especially at several hundred dollars plus monthly subscription charges.
Why would anyone who is ignorant of PCs want to get online in the first place? The only thing that comes to mind is to chase the fad, but people that buy purely for those reasons, rarely go for cheap crippleware. Seems to me you'd have better luck selling a $300, bare bones word processing system.
Teancom, you are an interesting creature. I've known some Mormons (good people, nice food), but perhaps I've never known them closely enough to encounter this belief scheme before. For my part, I am theist, non-Christian, for what it's worth.
There are still large numbers of people that believe in an out of nothing creation. Likewise there are significant numbers that believe that God established the universe and physical laws so it would all evolve just how He wanted from the big bang forward. This is however the first time I've heard a westerner profess that there are physical things and physical laws outside of God that God is not responsible for and can not change. (For the record this belief has been a part of some Hindu philosophies for millenia. No, I'm not Hindu.)
The real question then is what is God's place in the universe? If He is entirely bound by the known physical laws then you run into the problem of how does God interact with universe? If God has no physical presence, then he can not interact with physical objects while obeying physical laws. This is a form of the no causal break argument, if all events in the universe can be explained entirely on the basis of physical laws then there is no evidence for supposing the existence of a God existing outside the bounds of the universe. Of course, most people say God makes miracles by shoving physical laws aside and accomplishing what He wishes, but that would invalidate your position it would seem.
On the other hand you might argue that God interacts with the physical world solely by possessing physical form. Perhaps by being born into a mortal body or some other means, and then using that physical form to accomplish his will in a way that strictly adheres to physical law. Of course, I think most people (though perhaps not Mormons) would be very uncomfortable with the idea that every act of God could be replicated by man possessing the right knowledge and technology. Besides this just transfers the no causal break problem unto the issue of establishing the nature and existence of God's or any other soul. If God does exist in physical form then I would challenge you to point Him out, unless of course you believe He is no longer active in this world.
For my part I am much more comfortable acting on faith that God created physical laws for the benefit of the universe, but that He can push them asunder if need be. If I have misinterpreted your position, I apologize.
IF it is an issue of national security then you could use national security channels, including the FISA court.
That they want to create a special court for hacker crimes implies to me that they want to go after things that aren't covered by the current system, and by implication, aren't neccesarily matters of national security.
Let's get a few things clear. The FISA court is not a trial court. It does not try and convict anyone. It's primary purpose was to create a secret means by which to approve the usage of CIA, NSA, and other (supposed to be) foriegn directed intelligence technology against people residing in the US. Court records are sealed so that you never know who they are spying on or why.
In theory, having a court to keep national security issues out of the public record, while building your case, doesn't sound like a bad thing. In practice FISA is a rubber stamp. The court has been invoked a few dozen times and only once denied an application for surveillance powers, and that time was because the adminstration reversed themselves and said they no longer wanted those powers, in that case.
I would guess we are looking at a similar rubber stamp for monitoring hackers. I don't think they would try to create a secret trial court, but I can imagine the government wanting a secret court to permit breaking into and monitoring hacker computers and communications. This bothers me, because hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.
The principle behind the FISA court seems sound, until you realize it's a rubber stamp. Doing the same for hacking doesn't seem to make sense even in the first case. How much programming knowledge does one need before they revoke your right to privacy?
My apology to any Japanese in the audience if I'm wrong.
The story I heard was that life in Japanese cities had gotten so high stress, long hours that many people were looking for ways to have social/emotional release on demand. Being able to pick up a toy at any time of day or night was considered preferable in some ways to other people and pets that were less flexible and asked for more than a change of batteries. It's also cheaper than depending on call girls and such.
When and if machines start to have social interactions with humans which are indistinguishable from friendships and relationships (or at least the level of response of cats and dogs), then there is no reason to think that people wouldn't or shouldn't become emotionally invested in them.
I devote time to interacting with my friends and family, and thus we all grow closer as a result. The sharing and understanding makes them important to me. In a world where we interact and learn about certain machines by the same process, it makes perfect sense that humans would form the same attachments.
Humans and machines of today come about through entirely different processes, but that doesn't mean that in the future it would be impossible to "assemble" a biological organism or to "grow" a machine. The lines will blur and we must come to realize that our perceptions will as well. A perfect understanding to the biology, chemistry, and nuerology of you would not detract from your status as a social being. Neither should understanding the principles behind a machine make interacting with it any less interesting, provided it is sufficiently complex.
People on a budget want fuel efficiency and good value. People with too much money to burn go for "cute" and "spiffy". Since you know your market is a bunch of rich folks (or more to the point, their adolescent children), you can go ahead and mark up the price extravagently because they aren't going to care anyway.
There is a lot of profit to be made on "cool" one of a kind toys. That profit can do a company good while they work on the super economical car for the common man. So, I say, go for it.
Besides teaching emotions to a car sounds like a fun programming job to me.
Should we have a national ID or not? I don't know. I'm not going to try and argue that it will or will not be abused or anything like that. Despite not knowing what to do in the current situation, I do know that part of your argument is silly.
Basically you have said, I have right X and thus I should always have right X and fight to defend right X. Just because I have a certain right now, doesn't mean I should have that right.
For instance, in WW2 Germany soldiers could shoot Jews just cause they felt like it. That was their right, though I doubt most of the world would agree they should have that right. You are opposed to "vulgar American ideas", but should I have the right to pursue what you dislike? Maybe yes, maybe no. If my rampant consumerism will lead to environmental disaster then perhaps the answer is no.
The point is, that just because the members of a group are given the right to do something doesn't mean they should have that right. We believe that laws can serve a useful purpose in abridging some rights for the common good. Times change, laws changes, the needs of the people also change.
I'm not saying that National ID is such a case. I don't know, but I would full well expect government to show just cause before doing anything that will affect my rights. Whether or not they will or even can justify it, I don't know. I won't however accept any argument that reads: "It hasn't happened, so it shouldn't happen." You make other good points, and I respect your efforts in the military, but in part you sound like you are opposing change merely for the sake of opposing change.
For future reference it's 1/6th Earth Gravity, but 1/22th Earth Gravity Well. In other words escaping Earth's gravity takes 22 times as much energy as escaping the much weaker lunar gravity.
The sun goes through a half period in oscillation about every 30-35 Million years, for a round trip time of 60-70 Myr. Thus it passes through the disk every 30 Myrs or so, unfortunately these trips through only poorly correlate with known mass extinction events, so it may not be as likely a cause as one might imagine.
25-150 Myrs might be a little optimistic, certainly we'll be hit before then, but I'm figuring it would have to be relatively big to kill humanity. You can expect a regionally important meteor event in 10 Myrs or so. But even that is an insane amount compared to length of human civilization and the progress we've already made.
The gravity well on the earth is 22 times stronger than that on the moon. It's much easier to get to space from the moon than from the Earth. Of course it is easiest of all if you are starting out at a space station, but it's much easier to build large facillities if you have some gravity (like on the moon) than it is in free space.
Besides if we are going all the way to Mars, we might as well test out some of the tech by going to the Moon.
4-6 Billion years sun becomes inhospitable
0.5-1 Billion years, possible collapse of oceanic biosphere due to H20 escape into space.
25-150 Million years to next mass extinction asteroid/comet if you bet with the odds.
Length of human civilization: 15000 years.
Offhand, I'd say we've got plenty of time to find a solution provided we can keep our heads together long enough not to kill ourselves off. If we get Mars colonies in the next 10 millenia will be doing pretty good as a species. Of course that wouldn't be nearly so much fun as seeing it in my life time.
I managed to overcome the massive slashdotting of Casio.com and find a technical specs page.
Highlights: 174x144 pixels
1M of builtin memory
~80 images with JPEG compression
IR image transfer to comp
Basic Watch Functions
6-month battery if used only as a watch
"Batter life is shortened by using imaging functions and data communication functions" Auto-Power Save when not being worn.
Just the other day, it occured to me to wonder why we couldn't have wireless memory modules built into watches or something similar.
The internet has gotten rid of the need to physically move data around much of the time, but everyone still does it sometimes. PDAs work well for portability, but they have a lot of bells and whistles unneccesary to merely moving data. I think it would be fun to store 10M on my wristwatch and then have any computer within 10ft be able to read it and use that info. New means of personal authentication perhaps.
Of course the amount of wireless saturation will probably have to go up before that day. Not to mention there might be a few not so nice uses for computers interacting with wristwatches.
There is something that a lot of people are neglecting. Having a bachelor's degree is not just about what you have learned. Think about it, many jobs in the real world will spend weeks or more teaching you how to do the job well after you are hired.
Getting through college and having that diploma is also a statement about your ability to get through college. It speaks to time management, ability under pressure, ability to interact with others, etc. In addition to saying something about what you know, that piece of paper tells potential employers that you have the determination to be dedicated to the long hall and aren't just some flaky high school kid.
Getting an MIT education online would be an impressive feat, but there are still other questions. Without grades did you cut corners on your studies? Are you doing it to avoid social interaction? Did you learn to manage long term projects and research?
Clever knowledge isn't the only skill that counts in this world.
And does this bring us any closer to fiber to the curb - it doesn't seem like it.
WE have fiber to the curb.;-)
As part of a experimental project the whole suburb where I live was wired with fiber to the curb. Unfortunately the telco since decided to put a hold on the project and hasn't really taken advantage of the investment. There was a debate about offer superior versions of DSL, but they decided that cost was too prohibitive for the small client base. They might be offering it to businesses, but they aren't to consumers.
It's not just a matter of having everything wired up, but there is also an issue of having a cost effective use for it. If you're surfing the internet and playing online games, DSL or Cable offers as much speed as most people need.
Right now the only visible consequence of the fiber to the curb, is that ALL of this suburb can get DSL regardless of their location relative to the CO. Now if only someone will hurry up with widespread videophones...
Nobel's will hasn't been followed to the letter almost since the creation of the prize. For one thing it says contribution in the last year, and it's commonly been awarded to research which is decades old. I'm not sure if they ever gave prizes to research that was just discovered. Also Nobel intended that the prizes go toward practical discoveries (hence no award for mathematics, which he considered too impractical).
As far as why BEC is potentially useful, there are a number of reasons. For one thing it allows the creation of "atom lasers" with the ability to etch and affect targets at much greater detail (and much greater expense). The also allow for creation of some ultra precise clocks and gravity measurement devices. From the research aspect, they provide a framework for studying macroscale quantum effects.
Let me be honest, you'll have to wait a long time, if ever, to see consumer applications, but they do a good deal of importance in a variety of specialized areas.
All our technology in spite we will never be able to root out all terrorism. Whatever kind of goggles we use...
Terrorism on Bin Laden's scale succeeded because it was at least tolerated, if not directly supported, by the de facto government of Afghanistan. This is a large organization that needs space to train, equipment, communications, the ability to recruit, etc.
If some day the world is united against terrorism, and there is no place for known organizers or mass murder to gather, then we will all be better off. We will never stop the lone maniac, or a small group of dedicated fools, but terrorism with the complexity of a corporation should be something we can target and disrupt.
I don't care what the US has done in the past, it has never targeted innocent people.
Not True. The most extreme counterexamples come from WW2, when US high command decided to start fire bombing residential neighborhoods in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. In this regard, the use of nuclear weapons was only a change in scale, not in policy. Other examples come from Germany WW2, Vietnam and Korea.
That (publicly known) US military policy doesn't involve targetting civilans doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past, or can't happen again. I like the US, and I'm glad that technological advances allow for more accurate munitions. I just hope the people in charge can identify legitimate targets with equal accuracy.
The low image quality seems rather appropriate. It serves as a reminder that they are working from the field, in the middle of no where.
I think it will be just a bit shocking when the technology matures to the point that real time video feeds from remote parts of the Earth in the middle of a war zone become indistinguishable from local feeds. What they have now is low quality, but still very cool. Once it's no longer low quality will we still realize how cool it is?
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't even because ME was bad, particularly, just that journalists are cottoning on to the fact that its not the groundbreaking event that they thought 95 would be.
I agree that ME was better than 98, though not dramatically so. What I wonder about though, is whether journalists are more keyed to the look of the system. It wouldn't surprise me if the standard media judges software to be "groundbreaking" primarily based on whether it looks and feels different rather than whether it has exceptionally more functionality.
Realistically the changes to style and design should be weighted as some of the biggest differences over Win2K, so perhaps MS is counting on that to boost sales and hype among the ignorant. Surprising really, that it's been this long since a makeover.
Exactly why at least one of the Win98 or ME systems sitting around here will be getting an upgrade.
With a digital camera, after all everyone is going to run out and get one now that XP promotes media editing right?
These little boxes are marketed as "cheap" PC alternatives. In which case they are looking at a segment of society that typically doesn't have computers and isn't too interested in them. These are people who probably grow up with little exposure to computers and don't use them at work. Without a printer, they don't make a good word processor, so they lack an important PC functuality.
Now the real question is whether there is a use for the internet with people that don't want a real PC. Seems to me the answer is no. Email and internet access are useful to the tech savvy and those of us who are used to them, but people can still survive in blissful ignorance without them. Seems to me that there is just no market where these things are targetted, especially at several hundred dollars plus monthly subscription charges.
Why would anyone who is ignorant of PCs want to get online in the first place? The only thing that comes to mind is to chase the fad, but people that buy purely for those reasons, rarely go for cheap crippleware. Seems to me you'd have better luck selling a $300, bare bones word processing system.
Teancom, you are an interesting creature. I've known some Mormons (good people, nice food), but perhaps I've never known them closely enough to encounter this belief scheme before. For my part, I am theist, non-Christian, for what it's worth.
There are still large numbers of people that believe in an out of nothing creation. Likewise there are significant numbers that believe that God established the universe and physical laws so it would all evolve just how He wanted from the big bang forward. This is however the first time I've heard a westerner profess that there are physical things and physical laws outside of God that God is not responsible for and can not change. (For the record this belief has been a part of some Hindu philosophies for millenia. No, I'm not Hindu.)
The real question then is what is God's place in the universe? If He is entirely bound by the known physical laws then you run into the problem of how does God interact with universe? If God has no physical presence, then he can not interact with physical objects while obeying physical laws. This is a form of the no causal break argument, if all events in the universe can be explained entirely on the basis of physical laws then there is no evidence for supposing the existence of a God existing outside the bounds of the universe. Of course, most people say God makes miracles by shoving physical laws aside and accomplishing what He wishes, but that would invalidate your position it would seem.
On the other hand you might argue that God interacts with the physical world solely by possessing physical form. Perhaps by being born into a mortal body or some other means, and then using that physical form to accomplish his will in a way that strictly adheres to physical law. Of course, I think most people (though perhaps not Mormons) would be very uncomfortable with the idea that every act of God could be replicated by man possessing the right knowledge and technology. Besides this just transfers the no causal break problem unto the issue of establishing the nature and existence of God's or any other soul. If God does exist in physical form then I would challenge you to point Him out, unless of course you believe He is no longer active in this world.
For my part I am much more comfortable acting on faith that God created physical laws for the benefit of the universe, but that He can push them asunder if need be. If I have misinterpreted your position, I apologize.
IF it is an issue of national security then you could use national security channels, including the FISA court.
That they want to create a special court for hacker crimes implies to me that they want to go after things that aren't covered by the current system, and by implication, aren't neccesarily matters of national security.
Let's get a few things clear. The FISA court is not a trial court. It does not try and convict anyone. It's primary purpose was to create a secret means by which to approve the usage of CIA, NSA, and other (supposed to be) foriegn directed intelligence technology against people residing in the US. Court records are sealed so that you never know who they are spying on or why.
In theory, having a court to keep national security issues out of the public record, while building your case, doesn't sound like a bad thing. In practice FISA is a rubber stamp. The court has been invoked a few dozen times and only once denied an application for surveillance powers, and that time was because the adminstration reversed themselves and said they no longer wanted those powers, in that case.
I would guess we are looking at a similar rubber stamp for monitoring hackers. I don't think they would try to create a secret trial court, but I can imagine the government wanting a secret court to permit breaking into and monitoring hacker computers and communications. This bothers me, because hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.
The principle behind the FISA court seems sound, until you realize it's a rubber stamp. Doing the same for hacking doesn't seem to make sense even in the first case. How much programming knowledge does one need before they revoke your right to privacy?
My apology to any Japanese in the audience if I'm wrong.
The story I heard was that life in Japanese cities had gotten so high stress, long hours that many people were looking for ways to have social/emotional release on demand. Being able to pick up a toy at any time of day or night was considered preferable in some ways to other people and pets that were less flexible and asked for more than a change of batteries. It's also cheaper than depending on call girls and such.
When and if machines start to have social interactions with humans which are indistinguishable from friendships and relationships (or at least the level of response of cats and dogs), then there is no reason to think that people wouldn't or shouldn't become emotionally invested in them.
I devote time to interacting with my friends and family, and thus we all grow closer as a result. The sharing and understanding makes them important to me. In a world where we interact and learn about certain machines by the same process, it makes perfect sense that humans would form the same attachments.
Humans and machines of today come about through entirely different processes, but that doesn't mean that in the future it would be impossible to "assemble" a biological organism or to "grow" a machine. The lines will blur and we must come to realize that our perceptions will as well. A perfect understanding to the biology, chemistry, and nuerology of you would not detract from your status as a social being. Neither should understanding the principles behind a machine make interacting with it any less interesting, provided it is sufficiently complex.
People on a budget want fuel efficiency and good value. People with too much money to burn go for "cute" and "spiffy". Since you know your market is a bunch of rich folks (or more to the point, their adolescent children), you can go ahead and mark up the price extravagently because they aren't going to care anyway.
There is a lot of profit to be made on "cool" one of a kind toys. That profit can do a company good while they work on the super economical car for the common man. So, I say, go for it.
Besides teaching emotions to a car sounds like a fun programming job to me.
Should we have a national ID or not? I don't know. I'm not going to try and argue that it will or will not be abused or anything like that. Despite not knowing what to do in the current situation, I do know that part of your argument is silly.
Basically you have said, I have right X and thus I should always have right X and fight to defend right X. Just because I have a certain right now, doesn't mean I should have that right.
For instance, in WW2 Germany soldiers could shoot Jews just cause they felt like it. That was their right, though I doubt most of the world would agree they should have that right. You are opposed to "vulgar American ideas", but should I have the right to pursue what you dislike? Maybe yes, maybe no. If my rampant consumerism will lead to environmental disaster then perhaps the answer is no.
The point is, that just because the members of a group are given the right to do something doesn't mean they should have that right. We believe that laws can serve a useful purpose in abridging some rights for the common good. Times change, laws changes, the needs of the people also change.
I'm not saying that National ID is such a case. I don't know, but I would full well expect government to show just cause before doing anything that will affect my rights. Whether or not they will or even can justify it, I don't know. I won't however accept any argument that reads: "It hasn't happened, so it shouldn't happen." You make other good points, and I respect your efforts in the military, but in part you sound like you are opposing change merely for the sake of opposing change.
And how many of those things (not counting email) do you do without using a driver's license or a social security number?
For future reference it's 1/6th Earth Gravity, but 1/22th Earth Gravity Well. In other words escaping Earth's gravity takes 22 times as much energy as escaping the much weaker lunar gravity.
The sun goes through a half period in oscillation about every 30-35 Million years, for a round trip time of 60-70 Myr. Thus it passes through the disk every 30 Myrs or so, unfortunately these trips through only poorly correlate with known mass extinction events, so it may not be as likely a cause as one might imagine.
25-150 Myrs might be a little optimistic, certainly we'll be hit before then, but I'm figuring it would have to be relatively big to kill humanity. You can expect a regionally important meteor event in 10 Myrs or so. But even that is an insane amount compared to length of human civilization and the progress we've already made.
The gravity well on the earth is 22 times stronger than that on the moon. It's much easier to get to space from the moon than from the Earth. Of course it is easiest of all if you are starting out at a space station, but it's much easier to build large facillities if you have some gravity (like on the moon) than it is in free space.
Besides if we are going all the way to Mars, we might as well test out some of the tech by going to the Moon.
Hmmmm, well how much time do we have?
4-6 Billion years sun becomes inhospitable
0.5-1 Billion years, possible collapse of oceanic biosphere due to H20 escape into space.
25-150 Million years to next mass extinction asteroid/comet if you bet with the odds.
Length of human civilization: 15000 years.
Offhand, I'd say we've got plenty of time to find a solution provided we can keep our heads together long enough not to kill ourselves off. If we get Mars colonies in the next 10 millenia will be doing pretty good as a species. Of course that wouldn't be nearly so much fun as seeing it in my life time.
I managed to overcome the massive slashdotting of Casio.com and find a technical specs page.
Highlights:
174x144 pixels
1M of builtin memory
~80 images with JPEG compression
IR image transfer to comp
Basic Watch Functions
6-month battery if used only as a watch
"Batter life is shortened by using imaging functions and data communication functions"
Auto-Power Save when not being worn.
Just the other day, it occured to me to wonder why we couldn't have wireless memory modules built into watches or something similar.
The internet has gotten rid of the need to physically move data around much of the time, but everyone still does it sometimes. PDAs work well for portability, but they have a lot of bells and whistles unneccesary to merely moving data. I think it would be fun to store 10M on my wristwatch and then have any computer within 10ft be able to read it and use that info. New means of personal authentication perhaps.
Of course the amount of wireless saturation will probably have to go up before that day. Not to mention there might be a few not so nice uses for computers interacting with wristwatches.
There is something that a lot of people are neglecting. Having a bachelor's degree is not just about what you have learned. Think about it, many jobs in the real world will spend weeks or more teaching you how to do the job well after you are hired.
Getting through college and having that diploma is also a statement about your ability to get through college. It speaks to time management, ability under pressure, ability to interact with others, etc. In addition to saying something about what you know, that piece of paper tells potential employers that you have the determination to be dedicated to the long hall and aren't just some flaky high school kid.
Getting an MIT education online would be an impressive feat, but there are still other questions. Without grades did you cut corners on your studies? Are you doing it to avoid social interaction? Did you learn to manage long term projects and research?
Clever knowledge isn't the only skill that counts in this world.
And does this bring us any closer to fiber to the curb - it doesn't seem like it.
;-)
WE have fiber to the curb.
As part of a experimental project the whole suburb where I live was wired with fiber to the curb. Unfortunately the telco since decided to put a hold on the project and hasn't really taken advantage of the investment. There was a debate about offer superior versions of DSL, but they decided that cost was too prohibitive for the small client base. They might be offering it to businesses, but they aren't to consumers.
It's not just a matter of having everything wired up, but there is also an issue of having a cost effective use for it. If you're surfing the internet and playing online games, DSL or Cable offers as much speed as most people need.
Right now the only visible consequence of the fiber to the curb, is that ALL of this suburb can get DSL regardless of their location relative to the CO. Now if only someone will hurry up with widespread videophones...
This Yahoo! News story about the Nobel prize includes discussion of potential applications.
Nobel's will hasn't been followed to the letter almost since the creation of the prize. For one thing it says contribution in the last year, and it's commonly been awarded to research which is decades old. I'm not sure if they ever gave prizes to research that was just discovered. Also Nobel intended that the prizes go toward practical discoveries (hence no award for mathematics, which he considered too impractical).
As far as why BEC is potentially useful, there are a number of reasons. For one thing it allows the creation of "atom lasers" with the ability to etch and affect targets at much greater detail (and much greater expense). The also allow for creation of some ultra precise clocks and gravity measurement devices. From the research aspect, they provide a framework for studying macroscale quantum effects.
Let me be honest, you'll have to wait a long time, if ever, to see consumer applications, but they do a good deal of importance in a variety of specialized areas.
All our technology in spite we will never be able to root out all terrorism. Whatever kind of goggles we use...
Terrorism on Bin Laden's scale succeeded because it was at least tolerated, if not directly supported, by the de facto government of Afghanistan. This is a large organization that needs space to train, equipment, communications, the ability to recruit, etc.
If some day the world is united against terrorism, and there is no place for known organizers or mass murder to gather, then we will all be better off. We will never stop the lone maniac, or a small group of dedicated fools, but terrorism with the complexity of a corporation should be something we can target and disrupt.
I don't care what the US has done in the past, it has never targeted innocent people.
Not True. The most extreme counterexamples come from WW2, when US high command decided to start fire bombing residential neighborhoods in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. In this regard, the use of nuclear weapons was only a change in scale, not in policy. Other examples come from Germany WW2, Vietnam and Korea.
That (publicly known) US military policy doesn't involve targetting civilans doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past, or can't happen again. I like the US, and I'm glad that technological advances allow for more accurate munitions. I just hope the people in charge can identify legitimate targets with equal accuracy.
The low image quality seems rather appropriate. It serves as a reminder that they are working from the field, in the middle of no where.
I think it will be just a bit shocking when the technology matures to the point that real time video feeds from remote parts of the Earth in the middle of a war zone become indistinguishable from local feeds. What they have now is low quality, but still very cool. Once it's no longer low quality will we still realize how cool it is?