I wish parent could be modded up to +6 Insightful, because that's the very definition of an insightful comment right there: a deep understanding of the issues coupled with a unique statement. The question is though, where does that leave us as a society?
Saw one take a dive off of the top of a moving patrol car, onto asphalt (moral of the story: don't leave laptops on top of cruisers). Popped a few things out the side, but everything slid back into place, and it booted right up. Dunno about long-term abuse, but I found that test pretty impressive. For organizations such as those, I can easily see how the extra cost for a Toughbook would be worth it. You'd make it back within a few months with the amount saved by not having to replace components and entire units all the time.
Ding ding ding! Which leaves an awful lot of people in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches sitting around looking useless. As a society we ignore real threats (heart disease, cancer, car accidents) for inane scare tactics.
If there really were a significant number of intelligent and capable individuals attempting to carry out terrorist attacks on this country, more would have happened by now. Institutional paranoia is what we have instead, and now we're beginning to see where that leads us to.
BTW, it is a wee bit premature to declare his death as an assassination, not to say to accuse someone in this assassination.
The rest might be accurate, but there's just no damn way that ISN'T murder. One doesn't "accidentally" ingest a substance as rare and toxic as polonium 210, and if you were trying to commit suicide in such a way so as to make it seem like a murder, I'm sure there would be much better options available (especially ones that don't cause you to spend a torturous month in bed slowly dying).
The fallacy of your argument is the assumption that anyone can possibly remove guns from the hands of criminals. Sure, if you're willing to impose the mandatory and summary death sentence for possession of any firearm, you might be able to remove 70 to 80% of firearms in this country, but it would be at the cost of one of the greatest genocides in the last century. Guns aren't going to go away. The only choice society and government has is whether or not law-abiding citizens will be allowed weapons. Gun control groups may try to couch it in different terms, but that's ultimately what it comes down to: whether both you and the criminal are armed, or only the criminal?
Actually, I get the impression that if you want to learn combat medicine first-hand, you go to South Africa. I think some of the security contractors do that for medical training.
I hate to Godwin so early, but the German Army was made up of the German people. And the Red Army was made up of the Russian people (amongst others). It's a mistake to think that just because a military is composed of citizens of that country, that it directly reflects all of society, and would refuse to act against that same society if ordered to. Does the phrase "Japanese-American internment camp" mean anything to you?
It's 21 feet, and in regards to knife attacks, not being shot. I am by no means an expert with firearms, but I know enough to distinguish uniformed tripe when I hear it. Muggers aren't the only threat out there in the world.
I'd rather be robbed than robbed and shot
Sorry, but you don't have a choice in the matter. If you're unarmed and your attacker isn't, then barring a miracle the choice is entirely his. And if you'd truly prefer to give that option away, and leave your life in the hands of someone who has already demonstrated their lack of respect for you, then I can only assume you're a fool.
While the irony would be of truly epic proportions, wasting $25 million to demonstrate the stupidity of some fundies is overkill. As grandparent said, $25 million will buy a lot of food, shelter, and medicine for thousands of people. Or AK-47s and RPG-7s to arm thousands of defenseless people being massacred. Or a great deal of research on cures for various diseases.
As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a.50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction.
Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding).
Overall, it looks pretty well useless.
Now can someone please tell us roughly what percentage of botnet owners/creators live in the U.K.? Right. Great idea, but what's the point if it's not going to stop the worst perpetrators because they're on another continent?
No, the real reason the options are so unappealing is because running for office REQUIRES the person to already be a multi-millionaire with political connections, good presentability, moderately clean record (or good cover-up) and a good campaign staff. Amongst other things. I don't know about you, but most of the populace doesn't meet more than one or two of those qualifications, especially in regards to federal office. Sure, you can try to get your name stuck on a the ballot, so you can go around telling people you actually ran for office, but you're not going to have a snowball's chance in hell without the right support. And that leads you back to the first question: what difference does it make?
We rule. As a species, we're at the top of every single food chain on earth, local irregularities notwithstanding (for instance, I would not try to argue this point with a bear, shark or tiger).
Even there, your point still stands. Spear fishing, anyone?.30-06?.44 Magnum? In reality, bears, sharks, and tigers ain't got nothin' on decent technology, be it depth charges or grenade launchers (I've always wanted to go deer hunting with an area of effect weapon). Humans 1, Dumb Critters 0.
And allow me to speak freely when I say that anyone wishing (albeit minor) financial support for a coup of my state or federal government, I'd be overjoyed to contribute. I'm positively sure that this is inciting violence under some reading of your laws, but under mine the only exception to the first amendment is falsely presenting a clear and imminent danger in order to severely disturb the peace.
And what's so special about this tool, that a bunch of CS grenades can't do just as well? Seriously? *ANY* non-lethal crowd-control measure could be used in that manner.
Have we seen any sign that there is anyone out there with a level of sophistication high enough to think up original ideas like that, and then implement them?
If the risk is so great, then how come the terrorists haven't succeeded again, if they're so numerous, dedicated, and well-equipped?
Slashdot Mirror
In soviet russia, courts treat you justly!
I wish parent could be modded up to +6 Insightful, because that's the very definition of an insightful comment right there: a deep understanding of the issues coupled with a unique statement. The question is though, where does that leave us as a society?
Saw one take a dive off of the top of a moving patrol car, onto asphalt (moral of the story: don't leave laptops on top of cruisers). Popped a few things out the side, but everything slid back into place, and it booted right up. Dunno about long-term abuse, but I found that test pretty impressive. For organizations such as those, I can easily see how the extra cost for a Toughbook would be worth it. You'd make it back within a few months with the amount saved by not having to replace components and entire units all the time.
Ding ding ding! Which leaves an awful lot of people in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches sitting around looking useless. As a society we ignore real threats (heart disease, cancer, car accidents) for inane scare tactics.
If there really were a significant number of intelligent and capable individuals attempting to carry out terrorist attacks on this country, more would have happened by now. Institutional paranoia is what we have instead, and now we're beginning to see where that leads us to.
Parent shouldn't be modded funny, but rather insightful. As they say, it's funny 'cause it's true.
What is in Jonestown? Will I like it there? Are the people friendly?
So what's the solution? We've got democracy, and now we're trying to spread it. What would you suggest be done?
Singh said they want to build many more such towers, with one for every time zone.
So why not just say they plan on building 24 more towers, instead of "many more"?
BTW, it is a wee bit premature to declare his death as an assassination, not to say to accuse someone in this assassination.
The rest might be accurate, but there's just no damn way that ISN'T murder. One doesn't "accidentally" ingest a substance as rare and toxic as polonium 210, and if you were trying to commit suicide in such a way so as to make it seem like a murder, I'm sure there would be much better options available (especially ones that don't cause you to spend a torturous month in bed slowly dying).
The fallacy of your argument is the assumption that anyone can possibly remove guns from the hands of criminals. Sure, if you're willing to impose the mandatory and summary death sentence for possession of any firearm, you might be able to remove 70 to 80% of firearms in this country, but it would be at the cost of one of the greatest genocides in the last century. Guns aren't going to go away. The only choice society and government has is whether or not law-abiding citizens will be allowed weapons. Gun control groups may try to couch it in different terms, but that's ultimately what it comes down to: whether both you and the criminal are armed, or only the criminal?
o sts
Read through http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/584202/p
Actually, I get the impression that if you want to learn combat medicine first-hand, you go to South Africa. I think some of the security contractors do that for medical training.
I hate to Godwin so early, but the German Army was made up of the German people. And the Red Army was made up of the Russian people (amongst others). It's a mistake to think that just because a military is composed of citizens of that country, that it directly reflects all of society, and would refuse to act against that same society if ordered to. Does the phrase "Japanese-American internment camp" mean anything to you?
It's 21 feet, and in regards to knife attacks, not being shot. I am by no means an expert with firearms, but I know enough to distinguish uniformed tripe when I hear it. Muggers aren't the only threat out there in the world.
I'd rather be robbed than robbed and shot
Sorry, but you don't have a choice in the matter. If you're unarmed and your attacker isn't, then barring a miracle the choice is entirely his. And if you'd truly prefer to give that option away, and leave your life in the hands of someone who has already demonstrated their lack of respect for you, then I can only assume you're a fool.
I wish it were possible to mod a post up to +6 Essential Reading. More people truly need to read those words and think about the issues at hand.
While the irony would be of truly epic proportions, wasting $25 million to demonstrate the stupidity of some fundies is overkill. As grandparent said, $25 million will buy a lot of food, shelter, and medicine for thousands of people. Or AK-47s and RPG-7s to arm thousands of defenseless people being massacred. Or a great deal of research on cures for various diseases.
As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction.
Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding).
Overall, it looks pretty well useless.
Now can someone please tell us roughly what percentage of botnet owners/creators live in the U.K.? Right. Great idea, but what's the point if it's not going to stop the worst perpetrators because they're on another continent?
No, the real reason the options are so unappealing is because running for office REQUIRES the person to already be a multi-millionaire with political connections, good presentability, moderately clean record (or good cover-up) and a good campaign staff. Amongst other things. I don't know about you, but most of the populace doesn't meet more than one or two of those qualifications, especially in regards to federal office. Sure, you can try to get your name stuck on a the ballot, so you can go around telling people you actually ran for office, but you're not going to have a snowball's chance in hell without the right support. And that leads you back to the first question: what difference does it make?
We rule. As a species, we're at the top of every single food chain on earth, local irregularities notwithstanding (for instance, I would not try to argue this point with a bear, shark or tiger).
.30-06? .44 Magnum? In reality, bears, sharks, and tigers ain't got nothin' on decent technology, be it depth charges or grenade launchers (I've always wanted to go deer hunting with an area of effect weapon). Humans 1, Dumb Critters 0.
Even there, your point still stands. Spear fishing, anyone?
I thought the number was closer to 200? Did they ever state an exact figure?
And allow me to speak freely when I say that anyone wishing (albeit minor) financial support for a coup of my state or federal government, I'd be overjoyed to contribute. I'm positively sure that this is inciting violence under some reading of your laws, but under mine the only exception to the first amendment is falsely presenting a clear and imminent danger in order to severely disturb the peace.
o pinion/15702856.htm
Under his laws? How about under our laws too? Providing material support to an organization that is engaged in hostilities against the United States earns you the designation of enemy combatant. Have fun in Gitmo!
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1451512006
Let's be realistic here.
The public knows jack shit about the internet, nor is it likely to be educated by the media, for obvious reasons.
There is not going to be a public outcry, because the public is too damn stupid to know what's going on.
Ultimately all we can really do is hope that Google and their allies win out in this fight.
And what's so special about this tool, that a bunch of CS grenades can't do just as well? Seriously? *ANY* non-lethal crowd-control measure could be used in that manner.
And this is why the "security theatre" is a joke.
Have we seen any sign that there is anyone out there with a level of sophistication high enough to think up original ideas like that, and then implement them?
If the risk is so great, then how come the terrorists haven't succeeded again, if they're so numerous, dedicated, and well-equipped?
Is that necessarily a bad thing (provided you don't want children)?