Aircraft carriers are the exception, not the rule. It's pretty hard to sink a compartmentalized ship that displaces >100,000 tons, regardless of the weapons used. I was thinking more along the lines of surface combatants -- for better or worse they just aren't as survivable as they used to be. Can you name a single destroyer or cruiser that's on active duty which could survive a direct hit from a WW2 era shell?
Regarding the harpoon, it's a fairly wussy anti-ship missile compared to some Russian designs. The P-700 (NATO calls it the SS-N-19 Shipwreck) has a 750 kilogram (>1,600 pound) warhead. It seems doubtful that any modern day surface combatant could survive a hit from such a warhead. An aircraft carrier probably could but you don't have to sink an aircraft carrier to render it useless -- all you have to do is damage it enough to preclude flight operations.
I do agree with you and the GP regarding nuclear reactors being safe under combat conditions though. The Scorpion and Thresher both attest to this. Speaking of, it was the Scorpion that's believed to have been lost due to a faulty torpedo. The loss of the Thresher has never been attributed to her weaponry.
have you EVER seen a negative comment about bush on fox ? or a positive about obama on fox ?
Yes and yes. Various Fox personalities ripped Bush when he nominated Harriet Miers to SCOTUS. I also saw some favorable coverage of Obama's handling of the General McChrystal mess and subsequent nomination of General Petraeus.
How relevant is WW2 to modern day warship design though? There isn't a warship sailing the oceans today that could survive a direct hit from a WW2 era battleship shell. Modern warships just aren't protected in the same manner as their predecessors. A WW2 destroyer had more protection than a modern day cruiser. Modern warship design worries more about avoiding the hit (through active and passive defenses, i.e: missiles/guns and ECM/stealth) than it does about absorbing the resulting damage and remaining functional.
I don't dispute what you say about reactors being safe on warships but I'm not so sure that modern day warships would be as likely to sink in one piece as their predecessors were.
Or forbid you from marrying the one you love because it's "unnatural"
Get the Government out of marriage and this wouldn't be an issue. When you strip away the romantic and religious aspect what is a marriage other than a legal agreement between two people? What other legal agreement do you enter into where you need the permission of the government before you can proceed?
The Democrats, as it were, just can't help but shoot themselves in the foot with the gun control issue.
It's more the urban base of the Democratic party that can't help themselves. Rural Democrats tend to be staunchly pro-gun, moreso than their GOP counterparts in many cases. The most out-outspokenly pro-gun US Senators are both Democrats -- Baucus and Tester from Montana.
But yeah, the urban liberals can't help themselves when it comes to guns. They literally work themselves up into a hysteria. It's pretty amusing to watch. Every single time there's an expansion of gun rights they predict that blood will flow in the streets. The fact that it hasn't happened yet does not prevent them from repeating the claim that it will. They also spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what the law-abiding gun owners are doing -- witness Mayor Daley's new gun law after SCOTUS struck down his old one. He's going to limit law-abiding gun owners to a SINGLE handgun that they aren't even allowed to take INTO THEIR GARAGE. Want to clean your gun on the workbench in your garage instead of stinking up your house with the smell of solvent? Sorry but the City of Chicago has deemed that your 2nd amendment rights do not apply in your garage.
I'm sure this new law will deter the criminal element too. Murder is one thing but carrying a gun outside the home or owning more than one? What self-respecting criminal would cross that line?
SSH proxy traffic probably stands out like a sore thumb
SSH proxy traffic doesn't look any different from regular ssh traffic. It might involve more data transfer but the packets themselves are no different from normal ssh traffic.
All the countries that have held top spot, to my knowledge, have had hate-speech laws. (yes, I am aware there are other factors, such as access to medical care and not being the highes per-capita incarseration state in the world, but you get my point)
Way to undercut your own argument.
Show me a tangible, sociological advantage to allowing hate-speech, not "freedom of speech", but specifically allowing hate-speech
Liberty > the perceived right not to be offended
because as I have shown, there are degrees to freedom of speech and even the US does not have absolute freedom
It's a threat of bodily harm. Insults ("I hate you", "I hate niggers", "I hate people with UIDs ending in 885") are not. The fact that you apparently can't tell the difference between the two is not my problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Aircraft carriers are the exception, not the rule. It's pretty hard to sink a compartmentalized ship that displaces >100,000 tons, regardless of the weapons used. I was thinking more along the lines of surface combatants -- for better or worse they just aren't as survivable as they used to be. Can you name a single destroyer or cruiser that's on active duty which could survive a direct hit from a WW2 era shell?
Regarding the harpoon, it's a fairly wussy anti-ship missile compared to some Russian designs. The P-700 (NATO calls it the SS-N-19 Shipwreck) has a 750 kilogram (>1,600 pound) warhead. It seems doubtful that any modern day surface combatant could survive a hit from such a warhead. An aircraft carrier probably could but you don't have to sink an aircraft carrier to render it useless -- all you have to do is damage it enough to preclude flight operations.
I do agree with you and the GP regarding nuclear reactors being safe under combat conditions though. The Scorpion and Thresher both attest to this. Speaking of, it was the Scorpion that's believed to have been lost due to a faulty torpedo. The loss of the Thresher has never been attributed to her weaponry.
No, you can't deal with those that would infringe your rights with a "live and let live" attitude.
have you EVER seen a negative comment about bush on fox ? or a positive about obama on fox ?
Yes and yes. Various Fox personalities ripped Bush when he nominated Harriet Miers to SCOTUS. I also saw some favorable coverage of Obama's handling of the General McChrystal mess and subsequent nomination of General Petraeus.
How relevant is WW2 to modern day warship design though? There isn't a warship sailing the oceans today that could survive a direct hit from a WW2 era battleship shell. Modern warships just aren't protected in the same manner as their predecessors. A WW2 destroyer had more protection than a modern day cruiser. Modern warship design worries more about avoiding the hit (through active and passive defenses, i.e: missiles/guns and ECM/stealth) than it does about absorbing the resulting damage and remaining functional.
I don't dispute what you say about reactors being safe on warships but I'm not so sure that modern day warships would be as likely to sink in one piece as their predecessors were.
Well, technically, we can.....
...who have a much lower viewership than Fox, etc.
Irrelevant.
Or forbid you from marrying the one you love because it's "unnatural"
Get the Government out of marriage and this wouldn't be an issue. When you strip away the romantic and religious aspect what is a marriage other than a legal agreement between two people? What other legal agreement do you enter into where you need the permission of the government before you can proceed?
The Democrats, as it were, just can't help but shoot themselves in the foot with the gun control issue.
It's more the urban base of the Democratic party that can't help themselves. Rural Democrats tend to be staunchly pro-gun, moreso than their GOP counterparts in many cases. The most out-outspokenly pro-gun US Senators are both Democrats -- Baucus and Tester from Montana.
But yeah, the urban liberals can't help themselves when it comes to guns. They literally work themselves up into a hysteria. It's pretty amusing to watch. Every single time there's an expansion of gun rights they predict that blood will flow in the streets. The fact that it hasn't happened yet does not prevent them from repeating the claim that it will. They also spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what the law-abiding gun owners are doing -- witness Mayor Daley's new gun law after SCOTUS struck down his old one. He's going to limit law-abiding gun owners to a SINGLE handgun that they aren't even allowed to take INTO THEIR GARAGE. Want to clean your gun on the workbench in your garage instead of stinking up your house with the smell of solvent? Sorry but the City of Chicago has deemed that your 2nd amendment rights do not apply in your garage.
I'm sure this new law will deter the criminal element too. Murder is one thing but carrying a gun outside the home or owning more than one? What self-respecting criminal would cross that line?
right-wing parties can indeed be singled out for practicing it on an industrial scale. Just think of Fox, O'Reilly and Beck: no contest.
As opposed to MSNBC and Olbermann?
Bill O'Reilly > Sean Hannity > (Keith Olbermann == Glenn Beck) > Michael Savage
there's at least a chance that you'll be able to defend yourself against such Islamic pedo fucktards who would try and silence you with violence.
Thank god for the 2nd amendment....
And when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms it's usually the left involved in the stripping of liberties.
Both major parties suck when it comes to civil liberties. The only difference is which order you lose them in.
We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online.
Back in the day we used to live for the free week of pay channels that Time Warner occasionally had. Skin-a-max for the win ;)
Unfortunately it would seem that Feingold is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Congress-critters supporting our civil liberties.
or Daily Kos, or any other news outlet that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch
Daily Kos is not a "news outlet". It's a partisan blog.
I already have. It's not my problem that you are too blind to acknowledge them.
Yawn, more of the same.
SSH proxy traffic probably stands out like a sore thumb
SSH proxy traffic doesn't look any different from regular ssh traffic. It might involve more data transfer but the packets themselves are no different from normal ssh traffic.
There hasn't been a "discussion" here ever since you decided to ignore the difference between threats/insults and criminal charges/civil suits.
Keep splitting hairs if it helps reinforce your own sense of superiority though :)
Find your own study. I honestly don't care if free speech is defensible from a academic standpoint. It's a natural right.
That joke would have been funnier if you had replaced "nice young Russian guys" with "Libyans" and "check" with "used pinball machine parts" ;)
Packard Hell
FTFY
You still can't tell the difference between a threat and an insult. How pathetic.
All the countries that have held top spot, to my knowledge, have had hate-speech laws. (yes, I am aware there are other factors, such as access to medical care and not being the highes per-capita incarseration state in the world, but you get my point)
Way to undercut your own argument.
Show me a tangible, sociological advantage to allowing hate-speech, not "freedom of speech", but specifically allowing hate-speech
Liberty > the perceived right not to be offended
because as I have shown, there are degrees to freedom of speech and even the US does not have absolute freedom
You've shown nothing of the sort.
It's a threat of bodily harm. Insults ("I hate you", "I hate niggers", "I hate people with UIDs ending in 885") are not. The fact that you apparently can't tell the difference between the two is not my problem.
You are wrong. It is a bad thing.