Microsoft has good patents? It's hard to tell. Like any decent megacorp, they've got far too many patents to reasonable survey.
But searching for "Microsoft" on uspto.gov produces results that fit neatly into 4 categories: 1. Obvious to me. 2. I don't understand it at all, it's out of my field. But, I wouldn't be suprised if a "normal expert" found it obvious. 3. So broad it should never have been patented. 4. Something Microsoft has never gotten to work (so, the patent only serves to squelch research by others)
Here's a few examples of Microsoft patents that I feel should never have been granted. Only the worst offenders from 2 minutes of searching:
Unfortunately, that will be $0.00 , since it's free open-source property.
As you said, the government doesn't enjoy invoking it's rights of Eminent Domain, because there's so much paperwork and doublechecking before the forced sale can move through. They really have to demonstrate that free-market purchasing has failed before this step can be taken.
If they wanted any piece of software or IP, they would certainly try to purchase it conventionally before starting the seizure process. And, if when they tried to obtain it, the author asked for some value greater than $0.00 in compensation, then they couldn't later claim that it cost zero dollars. The original developer could solicit a quote from SAIC or some other government software contractor, asking how much they would charge to deliver a product of equivalent functionality.
They probably wouldn't even notify him that it was being done.
I can tell you from experience that this is not the case. For one thing, actual government employees rarely do much programming. It's delegated to contractors with virtually the same legal status as Microsoft. (And, anything written by a 100% government employee is public domain anyway, so it's very likely the original author will get a copy of the changes offered him)
If the gov't decided they wanted to use Linux to run their new tanks or super-duper death ray gun, and Linus said "no"
He's already said yes, back when he choose the GPL license for his project. Linux is already used in some tanks (just experimental things, not fielded yet)
the gov't can do anything they want.
That may be nearly true, but most of us like to pretend there are things they can't do. But it's always true that "National Security" trumps many things, and in the past few years it may have become even more powerful.
A hundred years of military theory disagrees with you, but what do they know?
That's what we learned from reviewing Operation Desert Storm. The military has been training to fix this problems since then. We'll soon learn how successful the new techniques & technologies are. Note that Desert Storm was hugely successful militarily, because it hardly resembled any traditional military action. It's a stretch to even call it a "war".
It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.
It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.
Twelve years: longest rush ever.
Interrupted by multi-year periods of absolutely no progress or planning, it doesn't look like a rush at all. The fact that the US endured 12 years without acting renders current actions suspect.
It would've been rational and consistent to build up into an invasion from 1999 onward. The same conditions existed in 1996, the US could've progressed to an attack then. Or in 1991. Nothing's really changed around Iraq since then.
Launching a war in response to nothing in particular appears capricious and even aggressive. And yes, appearances do matter. Especially in a democracy. By all appearances, Bush woke up last year and proclaimed Bagdad would be conquered in 12 months, then proceeded to look for reasons to do it. And here we are.
Can you tell me of anything that'll change in 3 months, or 9, that'll make waiting (at high readiness) until then any worse? I've got 11 reasons to wait through a few more rounds of watching UN inspectors advance and be rebuffed- assuming a more aggressive posture each time- before the US can honestly say "I've got no other choice; you forced me to do this"
Even Desert Shield gave the troops 3 months to prepare in-theater, and that was responding to a blatant provocation. From the flavor of today's rherotic, it sounds like Bush expects combat by next week. It's just much too soon.
Veritable paradise?
I'm talking about Operation Provide Comfort specifically- the Kurdish northern NFZ. In comparsion to the 70s and 80s, life there today really is a paradise. In some ways, it's even better than nearby Turkish communities.
It is inevitable that the region's people will suffer in the aftermath of a war. Any kind of US pull-out, actually, will open them to attack from jealous neighbors. There's no reasonable way their lucky condition can continue- funded by Saddam, without being oppressed by him- but it would be kind of the US to make the fall as soft as possible.
The only people an organization that uses GPL software has to distribute the source to are people they distribute binaries to. This obligation ripples through the system.
Yes, that's true. But when you distribute the binaries and source to someone, you also have to give her the GPL. And you must provide the source under the GPL.
Which means you gave her the right to re-distribute it to whomever she wants. Including total strangers and competing organizations.
If you, as a superior in the organization, forbid her from distributing it outside, then you have violated the GPL- because distribution under GPL requires grant of permission to re-distribute. If, because of security classification, you cannot give someone permission to redistribute a GPLed program, then you cannot give her the GPLed program, without violating the copyright of the original author. And that would be illegal.
So if a group wants to modify GPL code for internal use, that's their right. But they shouldn't do this if they'd be hurt by their modifications becoming public, because they have no legal way to prevent it.
They work great in the desert. Not so good in cities or inhabited areas. And if you find a military vehicle in a populated area, do you shoot it at once, maiming 30-50 local folk? Or mark it on the big map and wait until it transits?
Tanks and other armored vehicles soak up the sun and then glow like little lightning bugs in the infrared after the sun goes down.
Not if they're buried in sand, in caves, or inside barns or garages (for maximum "human shield" effect).
A gradual assault will force these assets to come into the open, where they can be targeted and destroyed. A rapid push into the heart of Bagdad simply passes many of these troops by, where they can begin surrounding and harassing overextended US ground forces. Retaliating against them will kill more civilians.
A blatant, inexorable push will leave behind a trail of bound prisoners. An unpredictable blitzkrieg scatters corpses in its wake.
The war doesn't end when an M1A1 reaches the capital. Saddam will have hidden, and we have no idea how long is forces will continue to fight for a ruler in an "undisclosed location". They're used to long incommunicado periods, though.
lat and long
Actually, depending on which service made the detection, several other coordinate systems may have been used. MGRS and UTM for example. (TBM people even use GCC). Latitude and longitude are unwieldy for calling CAS, or to use in a CAOC. (Although with the increasing need for JO, and more use of COTS, thet need to standardize on one system seems to be rising) (Yes, now I'm just going overboard with obscure acronyms)
LANTIRN and other optical technologies.
LANTIRN is not optical, at least not as that term is used by military survelliance planners. They use "optical" to mean visible spectra only.
Remember, the goal-- the one and only goal-- is to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.
No, my goal is to protect myself from terrorist attack.
The US military can, depending on ROE and tactics, sweep into Bagdad with small casualties themselves*. But the deaths amoung the Iraqi people will be high, and the political damage will be severe.
The surivors will be displeased.. The Arab community will be displeased. The world community will be displeased.
The international opinion that shelters & spawns terrorists will be strengthened.
Terrorists don't need chemical manufacturing facilities to do their work. (Efforts with urban disperal of Sarin have been embarassingly ineffective). What they need is 2-3 zealous people ready to die killing 500 others.
Rushing into a war like this will encourage anti-American sentiment for the next 40 years.
A slower approach creates more opportunities for international acceptance of a plan, more opportunities for Saddam to behave evilly, and more chances for a brave Iraqi to put 2 slugs into him.
How does maintaining vigilance over Iraqi airspace achieve our goals?
My goal- for no one to see the US as an enemy- is well served by the No-Fly Zones, where life is a vertiable paradise. Expanding this step-by-step would show the indigenous people who their friends are, and the eventual retaliation from Saddam would appear as aggression, showing who their enemy is.
*Low total casualties, but much collateral damage, including some US troops. Invading Bagdad could see a fratricide rate of 35%.
No, we do not. Analyzing those targets is my job. My company has spent 10 years planning Iraq invasions. We told Cohen what an invasion would be like, and he listened. We told the same to Rumsfeld, but he seems not to care.
Naturally, classification prevents me from getting into details, so you'll have to wait and watch CNN. (Ok, also, my NTK doesn't permit me to see the big picture. But my viewpoint is secondhand from some very smart analysts, I assure you)
P.S. Law and Order is not, and never was, good TV.
L&O is character driven- but the characters aren't the permanent cast, they're the guest stars. Those are the people whose goals and emotions really matter- the victims, the perpetrators, and the witnesses.
Films are great because they use these characters who are expendable,they don't have to keep them around. You can watch meaningful, irrevocable changes to a person's life. The writer is allowed to make dramatic changes at any time, and doesn't have to reset things for the next episode.
Long-running TV shows become ludicrous because the same group of people is sent to different combinations of skewed emotional extremes again and again. (And, if sci-fi, changed into dangerous monsters again and again)
Wolf evaded that with L&O, because the permanent cast is only there to help the viewer watch the new characters.
(Rod Sterling evaded that with Twilight Zone, because he had new guest stars to turn into monsters)
(The few times L&O tried to make interesting characters out of the permanent cast proved embarrasing.)
(1) expand our targets beyond those of a purely military nature to attack civil or, God forbid, civilian facilities, or (b) bounce rubble.
(c) Maintain vigilance. The OHOs might grumble, but there's nothing shameful about landing with unexpended ordnance. A cheap option (particularly in the north), since the airstrips and daily patrols are already in place.
After we execute this plan, what would you suggest we do for the rest of the 3-4 months you talked about? Find more targets or bounce the rubble?
A "Scud Hunt", they call it. (although really, other units are targeted as well). It cannot be expected to proceed very rapidly. Like you said, Iraq is a big area. Expecting all useful air targets to be found in 48 hours- even 48 days- is stupidity.
The only way to accelerate the process is to lure Iraqi units into action, by providing them with ground targets they can engage. A rapid land push would achieve this, and trade Army blood for AF fuel.
A partial ground incursion- enter Iraqi terrortory, but stay well inside the NFZ- would be safer. Saddam would be forced to deploy his land forces towards the US incursion. To do otherwise- to leave a US tank company unmolested in the southern desert- would weaken his credibility as a leader.
But, if Iraqi forces are lured into a counterattack, they are very vulnerable. The USAF needs to search a much smaller area to find them, and the targets are forced out of caves and into the open. Running engines creates thermal signatures at night, and radio chatter to coordinate movment also gives away their position. Maybe they'll even kick up a dust trail.
Meanwhile, the further the Iraqi forces get from Baghdad, the less control Saddam has over them. Both due to longer-range communication (which can easily be disrupted), and lower autocratic authority (the army will be more willing to surrender)
Would the token invasion force be at much risk? Not at all. If Saddam does manage to coordinate a push that's too numerous for the AF to disrupt, M1A1s can tear through whatever's left. (Or leverage the US Army's superior mobility into a quick retreat).
Chemical weapons? Yes, maybe Saddam could have a VX-tipped Scud within range. Upgraded Patriots might destroy it- but even it gets through, buckled down US forces are immune to CB attack. It's the cold season in Iraq right now, so it won't kill the guys to spend a few days at MOPP 5 (an exaggeration). Holding a position against chemical attack is fairly easy (especially if you can withdraw back to an uncontaminated area). Gaining ground in the face of CB warfare is more difficult and deadly. Gasmasks reduce tank commanders' vision and infantry's stamina. Waiting for CB detectors to arrive and give the clear slows down all movment. All of the tasks of securing a position (filling sandbags, digging latrines, stringing wire and erecting antennas) are much more difficult and hazardous in an area that may be sprinkled with anthrax.
Plus, as they get further into inhabited Iraq, the chance of civilian casualties increases. Even if the muntions were actually launched by Saddam's men, if US troops are in the area, some victims will decide to blame them. (And become terrorists later. Post-war terrorism killed many more US troops than the actual Desert Storm operation)
(Besides, provoking a CB strike would be the fast-track to UN approval)
Why isn't Bush willing to go for the slower, safer plan? Speculation:
Impatience
Symbolically, wants to restart the Gulf War where his father left off- on the virge of assaulting Bagdad.
Starting a tentative, progressive invasion would encourage rebellion towards Saddam's rule throughout Iraq (both by Iraqi dissidents, and opportunitistic neighbors). The people in the "liberated" area (everything behind the ground troops) would spread enthusiasm around the country. It might by tantamount to partitioning up the nation. All of the regional border disputes (like the "Kurdistan issue") would begin to flare up. The world, and the voting public, will get a preview of the instability and chaos that will roil a post-Saddam Iraq. And they might not like the looks of it.
We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.
That's wasn't nearly the same thing. I proposed expanding the no-fly zones to encompass all of Iraq. A permanent claiming of airspace. Not bombing for a week, then quitting. Desert Fox was a few days of airstrikes, which were terminated because it was believed they were successful.
So it turns out they weren't. If something doesn't work, there are 2 options: more of the same, or something else. In this case, "more of the same" is much cheaper in American lives than the alternative, so it deserves another attempt. Seriously, this time.
3-4 months of daily CAPs in central Iraq would possibly accomplish some positive results- or if nothing else, leave the region more vulnerable to a ground invasion.
The US military is superior to Iraq's, but it's biggest advantage is in air power (16,000,00% stronger) than land (400%). Take advantage of what you do best.
put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.
They neither advised nor lead. They called in air strikes. "Advising and leading" is what US SOF are trained to do, and what they love to do, but it isn't what was needed in Afganistan. The SOF knew nothing of Afgan geography or language, and were not even able to distinguish enemies from allies. Their only purpose was to relay targeting data to the men in the sky.
That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!
You might not like the idea of Turkey and Iran free to storm around Iraq in the wake of US air support. I agree, it'll be chaotic and unpredictable.
But in the aftermath of an invasion, that is exactly what will happen. Bush is not going to be willing to keep a garrison of 100,000 controlling Iraq. He'll push the assault until Saddam is dead or imprisoned, declare victory, and then, just like his father, pull the troops out within 8 months. (9, 10 years down the line, maybe President Jeb Bush will get to repeat the same steps)
The issue of Kurdish sovereignty, to me, is something that should be resolved before any invasions proceed. At least the US should announce it's intensions on the issue- otherwise, both Turkey and the Kurds will try to advance their agendas, planting seeds for more violence and recrimation down the road.
building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.
Really? I haven't heard a word breathed of such a plan.
Back in 1991, I had some hopes that the first Gulf War would leave Kuwait a free and democratic country. Since then I've learned that expecting the US to promote international democracy only leads to disappointment.
As you've pointed out, Afganistan had factors in place making it much more likely to move towards a peaceful government- but yet, conditions there have barely improved, and there's much doubt that the US will see that job through to completion. Since the task will be many times harder in Iraq, what is the chance that the US will decide to follow through on this one?
Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.
Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91, when the UN resolutions were first strongly violated. (Specifically, he should've call airstrikes on every suspected WMD site).
His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.
It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged). The No-Fly Zone could easily be expanded to the 34th and 35th parellel, or even beyond. Any obvious military vehicles in that area could be bombed whenever it is convenient.
This action would be low cost (the pilots and aircraft are already in place), and low risk (as compared to the inevitable 100s of US casualities from a ground incursion). And there could be several kinds of benefits:
F-18s would streak above Bagdad every day, constantly reminding the people who's really in charge. Such an environment would further degrade Saddam's local prestige, and make it more likely that someone will depose him and begin negotiating concessions with the US.
With regular combat jet patrols over most of Iraq, the jobs of UN inspectors would be expedited. If at any time they're denied access to a location, they can simply check-off their clipboards and head back home, knowing that a fuel-air munition will be detonating on it within 8 hours. (After the first few incidents, inspection-compliance should skyrocket)
With air cover provided by the US, a ground force of local troops could challenge Saddam. Turkey could invade- they'd like to expand their borders. Iran could invade- they'd love to claim some oil fields. Or Kuwait could afford to arm mercenaries and get some revenge. Whoever starts it, Kurds and other Iraqi rebel groups will join in. It could turn into a "Race to Bagdad". I'll admit this is unlikely- but it could happen 5-6 years later. The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it? The US public doesn't mind a land-war, as long as the infantry are faceless foreigners.
The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.
It began in 1899, when Britain invaded Kuwait.
Of course, they were "invited" by local rulers, who were sqabbling amoung themselves. Some already had German or Turkish support, and it was those competing empires that Britain was really interested in challenging.
One more example of how imperialist adventures can pay of in disrupted societies a century later.
Sure, the government can modify a GPL program and then declare that the result is Classified Top Secret.
But then they can't distribute it at all. Not to their soldiers, spies, or anyone else, regardless of their clearance.
By the GPL license, when you give the software to someone, you must also give him permission to give it to whoever he likes. If security levels mean he is not able to republish it, then you can't give it to him at all. (The NSA can keep it locked in a safe until the copyright expires in 2101)
From GPLv2 section 7: If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
No, the smarter terrorists will head to Chechnya for their WMD needs. It's still uncontrolled and violent (easy for guerillas to move in and out), and it's got stockpiles of nuculear missiles that are tested, proven and functional.
We're not talking some tin-pot dictator's vanity A-Bomb program here; the fruits of 50 years of USSR R&D are up for grabs.
a rather dense encoding, which means that you win on icache. It's a bit hard to decode, but who cares? Existing chips do well at decoding, and thanks to the icache win they tend to perform better - and they load faster too
Smaller opcodes save space in all levels of storage: network, disk, RAM, and cache. And most importantly, they speed up the movment of code between RAM and the CPU's instruction cache, which makes everything go faster.
We still need registers, at least to make the opcodes be decently small.
When you do an "add" command, c=a+b, how do we tell the CPU where the 3 arguments come from? From main memory? Somehow store the addresses to 3 different integers (plus the opcode itself) inside a 64 bit op?
Some kind of "register" is needed, just so that the asm code doesn't get bloated up by constantly referencing to distant pieces of RAM.
(Now, one could propose a design with, say, 64K of fast L1 cache, and have all opcodes reference values inside that cache. But in a system like that, you're essentially using 8000 registers! Many more than even RISC chips provide. And Linus says that lots of registers are not really helpful)
That can cause problems: you'd often want to know that a change compiles+runs on both platforms before checking it into CVS.
Using CVS as the main communication link between the two platforms means that linux developers can easily break the microsoft build, or vice versa.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln?
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
overly-long-desperately-needs-to-be-edited
Theoretically, the internet should remove length restrictions on stories. The reporter should be free to write more or less when it fits the material, instead of keeping column-inches in mind.
The editor's job in hypertext shouldn't focus as much on total length reduction, as on splitting an article into a main body and separate, data-filled sidebars, downloadable on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon patents "business methods". They are distinct from "algorithms", although neither should really be patentable.
But searching for "Microsoft" on uspto.gov produces results that fit neatly into 4 categories:
1. Obvious to me.
2. I don't understand it at all, it's out of my field. But, I wouldn't be suprised if a "normal expert" found it obvious.
3. So broad it should never have been patented.
4. Something Microsoft has never gotten to work (so, the patent only serves to squelch research by others)
Here's a few examples of Microsoft patents that I feel should never have been granted. Only the worst offenders from 2 minutes of searching:
Counting events in a simulation
Preexecution type checking for bytecode programs
Code Generation to query objects
De-Loading shared libraries
Licensing Java Objects
Cleanup orphaned processes
Process Calculus in XML
Cross-Thread invariants
Web based application delivery
I once ran a search on uspto.gov on my field of education (Computer Software), and read through 20 consecutively numbered patents.
17 of them were obvious to me- obvious meaning "I could write the patent body to 85% accuracy after reading just the title".
And compared to some programmers, I am not especially intelligent. Barely qualified to be an "expert in the field".
Unfortunately, that will be $0.00 , since it's free open-source property.
As you said, the government doesn't enjoy invoking it's rights of Eminent Domain, because there's so much paperwork and doublechecking before the forced sale can move through. They really have to demonstrate that free-market purchasing has failed before this step can be taken.
If they wanted any piece of software or IP, they would certainly try to purchase it conventionally before starting the seizure process. And, if when they tried to obtain it, the author asked for some value greater than $0.00 in compensation, then they couldn't later claim that it cost zero dollars. The original developer could solicit a quote from SAIC or some other government software contractor, asking how much they would charge to deliver a product of equivalent functionality.
They probably wouldn't even notify him that it was being done.
I can tell you from experience that this is not the case. For one thing, actual government employees rarely do much programming. It's delegated to contractors with virtually the same legal status as Microsoft. (And, anything written by a 100% government employee is public domain anyway, so it's very likely the original author will get a copy of the changes offered him)
If the gov't decided they wanted to use Linux to run their new tanks or super-duper death ray gun, and Linus said "no"
He's already said yes, back when he choose the GPL license for his project. Linux is already used in some tanks (just experimental things, not fielded yet)
the gov't can do anything they want.
That may be nearly true, but most of us like to pretend there are things they can't do. But it's always true that "National Security" trumps many things, and in the past few years it may have become even more powerful.
A hundred years of military theory disagrees with you, but what do they know?
That's what we learned from reviewing Operation Desert Storm. The military has been training to fix this problems since then. We'll soon learn how successful the new techniques & technologies are. Note that Desert Storm was hugely successful militarily, because it hardly resembled any traditional military action. It's a stretch to even call it a "war".
It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.
It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.
Twelve years: longest rush ever.
Interrupted by multi-year periods of absolutely no progress or planning, it doesn't look like a rush at all. The fact that the US endured 12 years without acting renders current actions suspect.
It would've been rational and consistent to build up into an invasion from 1999 onward. The same conditions existed in 1996, the US could've progressed to an attack then. Or in 1991. Nothing's really changed around Iraq since then.
Launching a war in response to nothing in particular appears capricious and even aggressive. And yes, appearances do matter. Especially in a democracy. By all appearances, Bush woke up last year and proclaimed Bagdad would be conquered in 12 months, then proceeded to look for reasons to do it. And here we are.
Can you tell me of anything that'll change in 3 months, or 9, that'll make waiting (at high readiness) until then any worse? I've got 11 reasons to wait through a few more rounds of watching UN inspectors advance and be rebuffed- assuming a more aggressive posture each time- before the US can honestly say "I've got no other choice; you forced me to do this"
Even Desert Shield gave the troops 3 months to prepare in-theater, and that was responding to a blatant provocation. From the flavor of today's rherotic, it sounds like Bush expects combat by next week. It's just much too soon.
Veritable paradise?
I'm talking about Operation Provide Comfort specifically- the Kurdish northern NFZ. In comparsion to the 70s and 80s, life there today really is a paradise. In some ways, it's even better than nearby Turkish communities.
It is inevitable that the region's people will suffer in the aftermath of a war. Any kind of US pull-out, actually, will open them to attack from jealous neighbors. There's no reasonable way their lucky condition can continue- funded by Saddam, without being oppressed by him- but it would be kind of the US to make the fall as soft as possible.
I have learned the hard way that the "I know this is true for reasons I can't or won't discuss" argument doesn't really work too well.
And yet, the case for attacking Iraq in a hurry is based on those kinds of assertions...
Heck, you may even change my opinion.
Easier to just stay home on Monday and watch CNN. (I need to buy some popcorn...)
The only people an organization that uses GPL software has to distribute the source to are people they distribute binaries to. This obligation ripples through the system.
Yes, that's true. But when you distribute the binaries and source to someone, you also have to give her the GPL. And you must provide the source under the GPL.
Which means you gave her the right to re-distribute it to whomever she wants. Including total strangers and competing organizations.
If you, as a superior in the organization, forbid her from distributing it outside, then you have violated the GPL- because distribution under GPL requires grant of permission to re-distribute. If, because of security classification, you cannot give someone permission to redistribute a GPLed program, then you cannot give her the GPLed program, without violating the copyright of the original author. And that would be illegal.
So if a group wants to modify GPL code for internal use, that's their right. But they shouldn't do this if they'd be hurt by their modifications becoming public, because they have no legal way to prevent it.
We have these neat things called satellites,
They work great in the desert. Not so good in cities or inhabited areas. And if you find a military vehicle in a populated area, do you shoot it at once, maiming 30-50 local folk? Or mark it on the big map and wait until it transits?
Tanks and other armored vehicles soak up the sun and then glow like little lightning bugs in the infrared after the sun goes down.
Not if they're buried in sand, in caves, or inside barns or garages (for maximum "human shield" effect).
A gradual assault will force these assets to come into the open, where they can be targeted and destroyed. A rapid push into the heart of Bagdad simply passes many of these troops by, where they can begin surrounding and harassing overextended US ground forces. Retaliating against them will kill more civilians.
A blatant, inexorable push will leave behind a trail of bound prisoners. An unpredictable blitzkrieg scatters corpses in its wake.
The war doesn't end when an M1A1 reaches the capital. Saddam will have hidden, and we have no idea how long is forces will continue to fight for a ruler in an "undisclosed location". They're used to long incommunicado periods, though.
lat and long
Actually, depending on which service made the detection, several other coordinate systems may have been used. MGRS and UTM for example. (TBM people even use GCC). Latitude and longitude are unwieldy for calling CAS, or to use in a CAOC. (Although with the increasing need for JO, and more use of COTS, thet need to standardize on one system seems to be rising)
(Yes, now I'm just going overboard with obscure acronyms)
LANTIRN and other optical technologies.
LANTIRN is not optical, at least not as that term is used by military survelliance planners. They use "optical" to mean visible spectra only.
Remember, the goal-- the one and only goal-- is to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.
No, my goal is to protect myself from terrorist attack.
The US military can, depending on ROE and tactics, sweep into Bagdad with small casualties themselves*. But the deaths amoung the Iraqi people will be high, and the political damage will be severe.
The surivors will be displeased..
The Arab community will be displeased.
The world community will be displeased.
The international opinion that shelters & spawns terrorists will be strengthened.
Terrorists don't need chemical manufacturing facilities to do their work. (Efforts with urban disperal of Sarin have been embarassingly ineffective). What they need is 2-3 zealous people ready to die killing 500 others.
Rushing into a war like this will encourage anti-American sentiment for the next 40 years.
A slower approach creates more opportunities for international acceptance of a plan, more opportunities for Saddam to behave evilly, and more chances for a brave Iraqi to put 2 slugs into him.
How does maintaining vigilance over Iraqi airspace achieve our goals?
My goal- for no one to see the US as an enemy- is well served by the No-Fly Zones, where life is a vertiable paradise. Expanding this step-by-step would show the indigenous people who their friends are, and the eventual retaliation from Saddam would appear as aggression, showing who their enemy is.
*Low total casualties, but much collateral damage, including some US troops. Invading Bagdad could see a fratricide rate of 35%.
We already know where the targets are.
No, we do not. Analyzing those targets is my job. My company has spent 10 years planning Iraq invasions. We told Cohen what an invasion would be like, and he listened. We told the same to Rumsfeld, but he seems not to care.
Naturally, classification prevents me from getting into details, so you'll have to wait and watch CNN. (Ok, also, my NTK doesn't permit me to see the big picture. But my viewpoint is secondhand from some very smart analysts, I assure you)
P.S. Law and Order is not, and never was, good TV.
L&O is character driven- but the characters aren't the permanent cast, they're the guest stars. Those are the people whose goals and emotions really matter- the victims, the perpetrators, and the witnesses.
Films are great because they use these characters who are expendable,they don't have to keep them around. You can watch meaningful, irrevocable changes to a person's life. The writer is allowed to make dramatic changes at any time, and doesn't have to reset things for the next episode.
Long-running TV shows become ludicrous because the same group of people is sent to different combinations of skewed emotional extremes again and again. (And, if sci-fi, changed into dangerous monsters again and again)
Wolf evaded that with L&O, because the permanent cast is only there to help the viewer watch the new characters.
(Rod Sterling evaded that with Twilight Zone, because he had new guest stars to turn into monsters)
(The few times L&O tried to make interesting characters out of the permanent cast proved embarrasing.)
(c) Maintain vigilance. The OHOs might grumble, but there's nothing shameful about landing with unexpended ordnance. A cheap option (particularly in the north), since the airstrips and daily patrols are already in place.
After we execute this plan, what would you suggest we do for the rest of the 3-4 months you talked about? Find more targets or bounce the rubble?
A "Scud Hunt", they call it. (although really, other units are targeted as well). It cannot be expected to proceed very rapidly. Like you said, Iraq is a big area. Expecting all useful air targets to be found in 48 hours- even 48 days- is stupidity.
The only way to accelerate the process is to lure Iraqi units into action, by providing them with ground targets they can engage. A rapid land push would achieve this, and trade Army blood for AF fuel.
A partial ground incursion- enter Iraqi terrortory, but stay well inside the NFZ- would be safer. Saddam would be forced to deploy his land forces towards the US incursion. To do otherwise- to leave a US tank company unmolested in the southern desert- would weaken his credibility as a leader.
But, if Iraqi forces are lured into a counterattack, they are very vulnerable. The USAF needs to search a much smaller area to find them, and the targets are forced out of caves and into the open. Running engines creates thermal signatures at night, and radio chatter to coordinate movment also gives away their position. Maybe they'll even kick up a dust trail.
Meanwhile, the further the Iraqi forces get from Baghdad, the less control Saddam has over them. Both due to longer-range communication (which can easily be disrupted), and lower autocratic authority (the army will be more willing to surrender)
Would the token invasion force be at much risk? Not at all. If Saddam does manage to coordinate a push that's too numerous for the AF to disrupt, M1A1s can tear through whatever's left. (Or leverage the US Army's superior mobility into a quick retreat).
Chemical weapons? Yes, maybe Saddam could have a VX-tipped Scud within range. Upgraded Patriots might destroy it- but even it gets through, buckled down US forces are immune to CB attack. It's the cold season in Iraq right now, so it won't kill the guys to spend a few days at MOPP 5 (an exaggeration). Holding a position against chemical attack is fairly easy (especially if you can withdraw back to an uncontaminated area). Gaining ground in the face of CB warfare is more difficult and deadly. Gasmasks reduce tank commanders' vision and infantry's stamina. Waiting for CB detectors to arrive and give the clear slows down all movment. All of the tasks of securing a position (filling sandbags, digging latrines, stringing wire and erecting antennas) are much more difficult and hazardous in an area that may be sprinkled with anthrax.
Plus, as they get further into inhabited Iraq, the chance of civilian casualties increases. Even if the muntions were actually launched by Saddam's men, if US troops are in the area, some victims will decide to blame them. (And become terrorists later. Post-war terrorism killed many more US troops than the actual Desert Storm operation)
(Besides, provoking a CB strike would be the fast-track to UN approval)
Why isn't Bush willing to go for the slower, safer plan? Speculation:
We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.
That's wasn't nearly the same thing. I proposed expanding the no-fly zones to encompass all of Iraq. A permanent claiming of airspace. Not bombing for a week, then quitting. Desert Fox was a few days of airstrikes, which were terminated because it was believed they were successful.
So it turns out they weren't. If something doesn't work, there are 2 options: more of the same, or something else. In this case, "more of the same" is much cheaper in American lives than the alternative, so it deserves another attempt. Seriously, this time.
3-4 months of daily CAPs in central Iraq would possibly accomplish some positive results- or if nothing else, leave the region more vulnerable to a ground invasion.
The US military is superior to Iraq's, but it's biggest advantage is in air power (16,000,00% stronger) than land (400%). Take advantage of what you do best.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. UNSEC set the conditions. Until they withdraw them-- which they have not done-- they still stand.
3/5s of UNSEC is against a resumption of an Iraq war. Certainly seems like they've withdrawn support, even if it's not down on paper.
put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.
They neither advised nor lead. They called in air strikes. "Advising and leading" is what US SOF are trained to do, and what they love to do, but it isn't what was needed in Afganistan. The SOF knew nothing of Afgan geography or language, and were not even able to distinguish enemies from allies. Their only purpose was to relay targeting data to the men in the sky.
That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!
You might not like the idea of Turkey and Iran free to storm around Iraq in the wake of US air support. I agree, it'll be chaotic and unpredictable.
But in the aftermath of an invasion, that is exactly what will happen. Bush is not going to be willing to keep a garrison of 100,000 controlling Iraq. He'll push the assault until Saddam is dead or imprisoned, declare victory, and then, just like his father, pull the troops out within 8 months. (9, 10 years down the line, maybe President Jeb Bush will get to repeat the same steps)
The issue of Kurdish sovereignty, to me, is something that should be resolved before any invasions proceed. At least the US should announce it's intensions on the issue- otherwise, both Turkey and the Kurds will try to advance their agendas, planting seeds for more violence and recrimation down the road.
building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.
Really? I haven't heard a word breathed of such a plan.
Back in 1991, I had some hopes that the first Gulf War would leave Kuwait a free and democratic country. Since then I've learned that expecting the US to promote international democracy only leads to disappointment.
As you've pointed out, Afganistan had factors in place making it much more likely to move towards a peaceful government- but yet, conditions there have barely improved, and there's much doubt that the US will see that job through to completion. Since the task will be many times harder in Iraq, what is the chance that the US will decide to follow through on this one?
Proscribing alcohol is exactly what fishbowl asked the DEA to do.
Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.
Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91, when the UN resolutions were first strongly violated. (Specifically, he should've call airstrikes on every suspected WMD site).
His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.
It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged). The No-Fly Zone could easily be expanded to the 34th and 35th parellel, or even beyond. Any obvious military vehicles in that area could be bombed whenever it is convenient.
This action would be low cost (the pilots and aircraft are already in place), and low risk (as compared to the inevitable 100s of US casualities from a ground incursion). And there could be several kinds of benefits:
I'll admit this is unlikely- but it could happen 5-6 years later. The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it? The US public doesn't mind a land-war, as long as the infantry are faceless foreigners.
The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.
It began in 1899, when Britain invaded Kuwait.
Of course, they were "invited" by local rulers, who were sqabbling amoung themselves. Some already had German or Turkish support, and it was those competing empires that Britain was really interested in challenging.
One more example of how imperialist adventures can pay of in disrupted societies a century later.
17 people huh? Do they have a web site yet?
Sure, the government can modify a GPL program and then declare that the result is Classified Top Secret.
But then they can't distribute it at all. Not to their soldiers, spies, or anyone else, regardless of their clearance.
By the GPL license, when you give the software to someone, you must also give him permission to give it to whoever he likes. If security levels mean he is not able to republish it, then you can't give it to him at all. (The NSA can keep it locked in a safe until the copyright expires in 2101)
From GPLv2 section 7:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
No, the smarter terrorists will head to Chechnya for their WMD needs. It's still uncontrolled and violent (easy for guerillas to move in and out), and it's got stockpiles of nuculear missiles that are tested, proven and functional.
We're not talking some tin-pot dictator's vanity A-Bomb program here; the fruits of 50 years of USSR R&D are up for grabs.
RTA. Linus says:
a rather dense encoding, which means that you win on icache. It's a bit hard to decode, but who cares? Existing chips do well at decoding, and thanks to the icache win they tend to perform better - and they load faster too
Smaller opcodes save space in all levels of storage: network, disk, RAM, and cache. And most importantly, they speed up the movment of code between RAM and the CPU's instruction cache, which makes everything go faster.
We still need registers, at least to make the opcodes be decently small.
When you do an "add" command, c=a+b, how do we tell the CPU where the 3 arguments come from? From main memory? Somehow store the addresses to 3 different integers (plus the opcode itself) inside a 64 bit op?
Some kind of "register" is needed, just so that the asm code doesn't get bloated up by constantly referencing to distant pieces of RAM.
(Now, one could propose a design with, say, 64K of fast L1 cache, and have all opcodes reference values inside that cache. But in a system like that, you're essentially using 8000 registers! Many more than even RISC chips provide. And Linus says that lots of registers are not really helpful)
That can cause problems: you'd often want to know that a change compiles+runs on both platforms before checking it into CVS.
Using CVS as the main communication link between the two platforms means that linux developers can easily break the microsoft build, or vice versa.
overly-long-desperately-needs-to-be-edited
Theoretically, the internet should remove length restrictions on stories. The reporter should be free to write more or less when it fits the material, instead of keeping column-inches in mind.
The editor's job in hypertext shouldn't focus as much on total length reduction, as on splitting an article into a main body and separate, data-filled sidebars, downloadable on their own.