If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess?
Alternate solution #1 - make the guy who sunk it clean it up. Alternate solution #2 -Make the guy who started the war clean it up.
There are UXO's from WWI and WWII all over Europe. From all sides. The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them. Hopefully cleaned up under control.
A bomber, say B-1 size and up, is big. Any one of a thousand things can go wrong on the flight, that only a human on board can handle. If a Predator has a problem in flight, it's not THAT big a deal. Let the puppy crash. If a B-52/B-1/B-2 has a problem in flight, it's far too expensive to just let it go.
From what I've heard, flying a Predator is significantly harder than flying a real jet. You don't have the same feel, or vision out the cockpit. Flying straight and level is OK, but trying to jink around a SAM would be next to impossible. Any latency in the system (and there will be some) gets you that much 'behind' the aircraft. They'll get there, but we're not quite up to the point of an R/C B-2. And I'd hate to think of trying air-to-air via remote control.
Who do you think lays the laser on the target for the bomb to follow in? Either a guy on the ground, or the co-pilot/BombNav guy.
As far as jamming and enemy capabilities go, the current 'religious zealots' are not the only enemy you design for. Think farther East. Somebody with a LOT more money/tech capability.
Oh, and if any country could claim credit for winning WWII, it would have to be the Soviet Union.
And if any country (besides Germany) could claim credit for starting WWII, it might be Russia. Stalin signing a pact with Hitler probably enboldened him to start the thing in the first place.
Several years ago, I came across a history book on WWII, encapsulating WWII from the 4 allies' perspective. It was basically the French, British, Russian, and US high school syllabus.
All 4 sections were strikingly similar in one respect. "We won, everybody else helped"
So that you can recall them So that the pilot, upon seeing the target is not quite as imagined, can abort the mission So that you can have an accurate, in person, assessment of the actual scene. There are quite a few videos floating around from Iraq that show last minute targeting changes only possible by an onscene human.
program the plane with a target, press the big red "Go Bomb" button
We have those now. They're called cruise missiles. Or in the ultimate sense, ICBM's.
But they're working on mutiple types of UCAV's. I expect we'll see a scenario whereby a few of these are slaved to a piloted control A/C (F-22 or AC-130 maybe). Give the UCAV's a simple AI for the flight to the target area ("Stay next to Mother"), and then the human aircrew can designate one or more targets to each. ("#1, these coordinates, #2, that truck, #3 circle until further notice)
Finally, it is MUCH harder to hack or jam the control system of a human piloted vehicle. You really don't want your unmanned vehicle to be captured in flight and turned against you.
I'm surprised that in 35 posts no one has mentioned that pay-as-you-drive insurance would tend to decrease driving
How so? Given no monthly insurance payment, people would just transfer that money into paying more at the pump. Their actual out of pocket wouldn't increase. The only way to reduce driving in the US is to dramatically increase the overall costs. All else remains the same, and increase the price at the pump to maybe $5/gal. REmove monthly insurance payments, and you'd have to increase the pump price to maybe $9 or $10/gal to see any difference in miles driven.
Right. And the very next paragraph is: To protect lucrative broadcast contracts, athletes and other participants are also prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the games, unless they get permission ahead of time.
The CNN article seems to suggest that the restriction on video/audio/photo material extends to "after the games". CNN may have gotten it wrong, but that's what it says.
prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the games, unless they get permission ahead of time
Personal audio/video/stills cannot compete with professional media. For composition or accessibility. These are treasured moments for the athletes and their friends and families. Fluff for the rest of us. Being able to show ALL your relatives the video you took while marching into the stadium is something that cannot be replaced nor recreated.
Screw you, IOC. You don't own them. Especially not forever.
Was Senator Kennedy prevented from flying? No. A name on the 'no-fly' list was the same, or similar to his. The ticket agent, following her instructions, did not (could not) sell him a ticket. She referred the matter to airport security, where they cleared Kennedy to get his ticket and fly.
This happened several times over that 3 week span.
It took 3 weeks to get his name off that list. Not 3 weeks before he could fly again.
When someone whose name matches one on the list, what should the ticketing agent have done? Ignore it?
Take the names of government officials (like, say, SENATORS) OFF THE LIST.
So anybody using the alias "Tom Daschle" or "John McCain" is automatically cleared to fly. COOL!
Allow passengers to carry guns or other weapons onboard planes.
Bad idea. How many people actually carry on a daily basis? Concealed or open. I've seen stats that point to maybe 2% (in those places where you can). On a 100 person flight, that gives you 2 people. 3, if you include the Sky Marshal. 3 people, unknown to each other, uncoordinated in methods, and of unknown skill. All the bad guy has to do is load up a particular flight with 6 of his own. An automatic 2-1 advantage. Add in timing, practice, choice of seating, and you have a HUGE advantage for the attackers. Station 2 sleepers at the rear of the cabin. As soon as your two regular passengers identify themselves, shoot them from behind. They can then carry on with their mission.
The criminals will always use the maximum armament needed to complete their mission. Allow firearms in the general flying public, and they'll use those. If everybody carried a weapon, I'd agree with you. But they don't.
..he was never actually prohibited from flying. His name was flagged. The counter clerk bumped it up to the next level. That person checked him out, found he was not the person they are looking for, and cleared him to get on the plane.
Yes, it took 3 weeks to get his name off the list, but during that time, he was still flying.
For an analogy, let's presume there is a warrant out for a person that goes by the name MysticalFruit. No address, no other info. All they have is the name. Should you get stopped by the police (running a stop sign, maybe), should the police officer check you out a little further, to determine if you are that MysticalFruit named in the waarrant? Or should he just blow it off?
Because this particular T. Kennedy is not the person they are looking for does not mean that there isn't a T. Kennedy that they ARE looking for.
Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap:
Except that this time, instead of a nebulous threat of Soviet ICBM's raining down on us, the "bad guys" are actually blowing things up and purposely targeting civilians.
America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down.
And checking the name "T. Kennedy" is merely the first step. Second level checking (full name, address, etc) would presumably clear all the other "T. Kennedys".
How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?
Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.
Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so. How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.
It appears you assume that they didn't do any testing...any simulation on this process before implementation. That they just came up with this idea, and tossed it at the airports. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Name the major system, ANY major system, that has/had zero bugs after being put into the field. After weeks/months/years of testing. The only thing I can think of that comes close is the Shuttle. Oops...we lost two of those, so thats out.
Was Sen. Kennedy eventually allowed to fly? Yes. So it appears that the particular problem got worked out. What was the nature of the problem? Human, procedural, software? We don't kow. Yet.
Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.
Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.
Slashdot Mirror
More people died in car accidents in the US last year than did on Sept. 11th
Make that last month.
Not anymore. He's a little bit dead.
It's very easy to second guess combat actions. The Canadian Inquiry Board, however, found that "It was the assessment of the CIB medical adviser that the operational use of the go pill had no adverse effect on the (pilots)."
If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess?
Alternate solution #1 - make the guy who sunk it clean it up.
Alternate solution #2 -Make the guy who started the war clean it up.
There are UXO's from WWI and WWII all over Europe. From all sides. The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them. Hopefully cleaned up under control.
Would some of the explosives now be inert?
Unstable is the word you're looking for.
A bomber, say B-1 size and up, is big. Any one of a thousand things can go wrong on the flight, that only a human on board can handle. If a Predator has a problem in flight, it's not THAT big a deal. Let the puppy crash. If a B-52/B-1/B-2 has a problem in flight, it's far too expensive to just let it go.
From what I've heard, flying a Predator is significantly harder than flying a real jet. You don't have the same feel, or vision out the cockpit. Flying straight and level is OK, but trying to jink around a SAM would be next to impossible. Any latency in the system (and there will be some) gets you that much 'behind' the aircraft. They'll get there, but we're not quite up to the point of an R/C B-2. And I'd hate to think of trying air-to-air via remote control.
Who do you think lays the laser on the target for the bomb to follow in? Either a guy on the ground, or the co-pilot/BombNav guy.
As far as jamming and enemy capabilities go, the current 'religious zealots' are not the only enemy you design for. Think farther East. Somebody with a LOT more money/tech capability.
Oh, and if any country could claim credit for winning WWII, it would have to be the Soviet Union.
And if any country (besides Germany) could claim credit for starting WWII, it might be Russia. Stalin signing a pact with Hitler probably enboldened him to start the thing in the first place.
Several years ago, I came across a history book on WWII, encapsulating WWII from the 4 allies' perspective. It was basically the French, British, Russian, and US high school syllabus.
All 4 sections were strikingly similar in one respect.
"We won, everybody else helped"
So that you can recall them
So that the pilot, upon seeing the target is not quite as imagined, can abort the mission
So that you can have an accurate, in person, assessment of the actual scene. There are quite a few videos floating around from Iraq that show last minute targeting changes only possible by an onscene human.
program the plane with a target, press the big red "Go Bomb" button
We have those now. They're called cruise missiles. Or in the ultimate sense, ICBM's.
But they're working on mutiple types of UCAV's. I expect we'll see a scenario whereby a few of these are slaved to a piloted control A/C (F-22 or AC-130 maybe). Give the UCAV's a simple AI for the flight to the target area ("Stay next to Mother"), and then the human aircrew can designate one or more targets to each. ("#1, these coordinates, #2, that truck, #3 circle until further notice)
Finally, it is MUCH harder to hack or jam the control system of a human piloted vehicle. You really don't want your unmanned vehicle to be captured in flight and turned against you.
I'm surprised that in 35 posts no one has mentioned that pay-as-you-drive insurance would tend to decrease driving
How so? Given no monthly insurance payment, people would just transfer that money into paying more at the pump. Their actual out of pocket wouldn't increase. The only way to reduce driving in the US is to dramatically increase the overall costs. All else remains the same, and increase the price at the pump to maybe $5/gal. REmove monthly insurance payments, and you'd have to increase the pump price to maybe $9 or $10/gal to see any difference in miles driven.
It is necessary for the cellphone company. They have a need to separate you from some more of your money.
Right. And the very next paragraph is:
To protect lucrative broadcast contracts, athletes and other participants are also prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the games, unless they get permission ahead of time.
The CNN article seems to suggest that the restriction on video/audio/photo material extends to "after the games". CNN may have gotten it wrong, but that's what it says.
prohibited from posting any video, audio or still photos they take themselves, even after the games, unless they get permission ahead of time
Personal audio/video/stills cannot compete with professional media. For composition or accessibility. These are treasured moments for the athletes and their friends and families. Fluff for the rest of us. Being able to show ALL your relatives the video you took while marching into the stadium is something that cannot be replaced nor recreated.
Screw you, IOC. You don't own them. Especially not forever.
Very true. But he was still flying.
Was Senator Kennedy prevented from flying? No. A name on the 'no-fly' list was the same, or similar to his. The ticket agent, following her instructions, did not (could not) sell him a ticket. She referred the matter to airport security, where they cleared Kennedy to get his ticket and fly.
This happened several times over that 3 week span.
It took 3 weeks to get his name off that list. Not 3 weeks before he could fly again.
When someone whose name matches one on the list, what should the ticketing agent have done? Ignore it?
The airline clerk should have given him a ticket right away.
NO! It's not the ticketing agents job to subvert the system, no matter who it is. Bump it up, and let a supervisor handle it.
once they realized he wasn't a terrorist, they should have cleared his name immediately. It shoudln't have taken 3 weeks of phone calls.
Again, that's not their job. They don't create or allter the list, they merely use it. Removing someone, even a Senator, should be DHS.
Take the names of government officials (like, say, SENATORS) OFF THE LIST.
So anybody using the alias "Tom Daschle" or "John McCain" is automatically cleared to fly. COOL!
Allow passengers to carry guns or other weapons onboard planes.
Bad idea.
How many people actually carry on a daily basis? Concealed or open. I've seen stats that point to maybe 2% (in those places where you can). On a 100 person flight, that gives you 2 people. 3, if you include the Sky Marshal. 3 people, unknown to each other, uncoordinated in methods, and of unknown skill. All the bad guy has to do is load up a particular flight with 6 of his own. An automatic 2-1 advantage. Add in timing, practice, choice of seating, and you have a HUGE advantage for the attackers.
Station 2 sleepers at the rear of the cabin. As soon as your two regular passengers identify themselves, shoot them from behind. They can then carry on with their mission.
The criminals will always use the maximum armament needed to complete their mission. Allow firearms in the general flying public, and they'll use those. If everybody carried a weapon, I'd agree with you. But they don't.
..he was never actually prohibited from flying. His name was flagged. The counter clerk bumped it up to the next level. That person checked him out, found he was not the person they are looking for, and cleared him to get on the plane.
Yes, it took 3 weeks to get his name off the list, but during that time, he was still flying.
For an analogy, let's presume there is a warrant out for a person that goes by the name MysticalFruit. No address, no other info. All they have is the name. Should you get stopped by the police (running a stop sign, maybe), should the police officer check you out a little further, to determine if you are that MysticalFruit named in the waarrant? Or should he just blow it off?
Because this particular T. Kennedy is not the person they are looking for does not mean that there isn't a T. Kennedy that they ARE looking for.
Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap:
Except that this time, instead of a nebulous threat of Soviet ICBM's raining down on us, the "bad guys" are actually blowing things up and purposely targeting civilians.
America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down.
What do you propose we do instead?
Compare any US airport to a European one, and you'll see tighter security, yet faster-moving people
Clearly, you have never flown through Madrid or Athens (pre-Olympics).
And checking the name "T. Kennedy" is merely the first step. Second level checking (full name, address, etc) would presumably clear all the other "T. Kennedys".
How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?
Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.
Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so.
How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.
It appears you assume that they didn't do any testing...any simulation on this process before implementation. That they just came up with this idea, and tossed it at the airports. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Name the major system, ANY major system, that has/had zero bugs after being put into the field. After weeks/months/years of testing. The only thing I can think of that comes close is the Shuttle. Oops...we lost two of those, so thats out.
Was Sen. Kennedy eventually allowed to fly? Yes. So it appears that the particular problem got worked out.
What was the nature of the problem? Human, procedural, software? We don't kow. Yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if they put Kennedy on the Do Not Fly list to keep him from voting on a particular bill.
Well..since he was leaving Washington, flying to Boston, probably not.
Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.
Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.