Great question!! As in 1991 I reported to 2 SOPS which performed C2 of a non-existent (according to this article) satellite system. We created navigation uploads based on fake Pseudo-Ranging from about 20 fake satellites received by fake monitoring stations. The Khalman filter took the fake PRs and created fake navigation uploads. I, as the Satellite Operator, started GPS (by name alone) satellite supports by slewing ground antennaes to a fake location (we used wiijii boards and random number generators for az and elev ) to then radiate into blank open space. Funny thing is watching Patrick AFB have fake launches!! They would load billion dollar Delta2 rockets on the pad, pretend they were fitting a GPS satellite onto the top, and then launch nothing into space. We would do pretend thruster firings to get it into a transfer orbit, and then de-spin the fake satellites.
So many fake things I did. OH! And we even stood up a Training Squadron, 534th TRS at Vandenberg to train fake satellite operators!! It's a shame only my last years teaching was to people flying real satellites. I guess we had good practice from years of faking it.
Your net is too small. Middle Easterners have been murdering millions for thousands of years, not hundreds. Look up the origins of Wahhabism. It started shortly after the death of Christ. The "Crusades" is often cast as a response in 1095 to Christians being murdered by Muslims, while crossing the Mediterranean. So that's 925 years ago that people on a large scale started getting pissed off about it.
The book "5 Pillars of Islam" really explains it well. And it's depressing when you realize just how long people have been killing each other over their invisible friend, beliefs, etc.
I used to say, of all the facts, press get about 40%. Of the 40% they probably only capture and understand 40%. Leaving us with 16% of the original. With the 16% they accurately present 40% in context, which leaves the reader with the ability to discern about 7% of what's actually going on in any situation. The more of an expert you are in ANY field, the more you realize how stupid our press, media, etc have become. They're great at sensationalism, but suck at everything else. Miley Cyrus gets front page while genocide runs on page 6. We are also at fault. 100% of teens can identify Miley Cyrus, while probably 20% can ID Biden, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, etc.
Don't be so quick to attribute deaths in Syria to gun related deaths. I personally watched ISR video where they decided to save ammunition by switching to a large blade (looked like a machete). They lined up people near Yazadi on a bridge over a river. They had the people lean over the bridge railing, and then slit their throats. The lifeless bodies were then kicked into the river. Thousands died without a single bullet.
Makes sense. Most anti-social behavior appears when populations are stressed. Low numbers, there are a low number of social issues from anti-social behaviors. Start over-crowding or making resources scarce and then issues start popping up. Probably is statistically linked to depression, suicide, and similar problems. I'm guessing though.
Holy shit balls. I wish people with your capability to understand basic tenants of gun ownership wrote our laws. Not dumbshits who say ARs left them crying, and somehow making a magazine release illegal (bullet buttons, etc) is safer. If gun ownership was an underlying root cause, homicides would be huge in Oklahoma and Texas compared to the NorthEast (Maine, NH, NY, etc). I do think there's a social-economic link, so I don't 100% agree with your points. However, you are able to logically work through the debate. Phuck I wish there were more people like you in the national debate on guns.
At the layer 2 or Rf layer yes. However the news is never that technically educated or contextual. They're referring to layer 5, or application encryption.
Now that we xenophobically blocked Syrian refugees, now the Governors have announced they will keep Amierica safe by banning cell phones. "The terrorists used cell phones and this new technology they learned from Snowden (aka Moldemort) called SMS. We must not be threatened by this illegal usage of dangerous technology." Rumor has it they're going after books next and plan big book burnings and witch drownings. "I know at least one of those ISIS phuckers read a Harry Potter book," Texas governor was overheard saying.
There's a father in the UK who would disagree with you. His daughter, who was very quiet, introspective and not very religious was introduced to ISIS via Twitter. They carefully groom, have "handlers," who spot the girls and then hand them off. They're then fed a steady stream, similar to what you see on your Twitter and Facebook. With the aim to gradually move you from center and an "entertaining extreme ideas," without any aim to do them yourself. Then one day, "Come check it out for yourself. Here's Twitter accounts of others who are here and having a great time!!" The UK girl hid her trip from her parents who had 0 idea until the police showed up. The sick irony is the police had previously contacted the school, who sent home a letter with the girl for her parents to read. Guess whether parents saw it? Long story still long... It is good that Anon is shutting these down.
For the people asking why intel communities aren't shutting them down: They're intel sources. Why would you shut down accounts when they tell you TTPs, SOPs, areas of influence, capabilities, locations (eg. idiot Twitters a pic of the ISIS HQ, which is then bombed within 24 hours), etc. Besides, no manning for this as there's no DoD or IC requirements to "shut down propaganda accounts."
Because in Europe, they'll pull you over for not passing, while cruising in the left lane. I drove a rental around Belgium and Germany, and was warned by quite a few people to stay out of the left two lanes (assuming 3+ lane) I've watched CHP (California Highway Patrol) roll up on a left lane squatter, cruise for about 1-2 miles behind, and then pass on the right. Which, technically, I think passing on the right is also illegal to go along with the impeding. The only place I've seen here enforce is CHP up north, around Monterey, where retirees in motorhome back up 4+ cars going up hills.
Your issue is very similar to what Twitch streamers go through with delay between audio and video. I'd suggest checking out OBS and there are quite a few how-to videos on YouTube to show you how to sync.
"Preview" is your friend. I'd use it every time as a suggestion. Line breaks are stripped out, just as they have been for many many years on/. However, you can use HyperTextMarkupLanguage (HTML), such as P and BR, to get the spacing.
Late-2012 Mac Mini
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
OWC 500Mb SSD drive
16 Gb memory (upgrade from OWC)
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Toshiba 32" TV as the monitor
El Gato HD game capture for streaming XBOX360 on Twitch.TV ( Johnny4848 )
No problems to date. Of course, use Magic Trackpad and Apple wireless keyboard with it.
Anytime the stun or sidearm is unholstered, the camera begins recording. This does more, as you start seeing how often force is threatened. Maybe it starts showing trends (e.g. group 1 pulls in 80% of traffic stops versus group 2 pulls in 10%). There's no objective way to make your TTPs (Tactical Task Procedures, standard op procedures, whatever you want to call em) better without measuring. If an officer is pulling out force so often the batteries fail, then this should trigger an internal audit. Such as, IT department seeing one user in particular seems to be going often to www.whitehouse.com and xvideos.com. Do we say all users are bad, or do we monitor for the 1 or 2 who do bad things? The latter. Good for IT, should be good for LEO.
Besides, cops seem all geared up in tactical battle rattle (stun grenades on occasion, multiple sets of cuffs, body armor, etc), what's another 12 oz external Lithium Ion battery pack?
If I break into your house, and then walk into your main hallway, and then say, "There is a security flaw in your home! From this point in your hallway I can listen to any room, or walk down freely into any room." As you're looking at your front door splintered from the battering ram I hit it with to get in, would you call it a "hack," a flaw or something to be concerned about how your hallway(s) go through your house? No, you'd say, "The hallway is fine, I need a stronger front door. BTW, the Glock I'm holding is loaded."
When I start to read, "SS7 was designed in the 80s," I already know I'm dealing wtih a mental midget. Actually, SS7 begain due to the first ever hackers. Remember 2600? As in, 2600 Hz was the signaling frequency for a landline switch. Throw that tone, and you could make calls (for free if it was a payphone). Hence, telecoms came up with an idea to do out of band signaling, which eventually became SS7. So, saying you can "hack" SS7 is very misleading because all SS7 does is coordinate call set up. That "ringing" you hear as you wait for the far, distant switch to reply that the called line is available, is a "comfort tone," as SS7 does it's work. Besides cutting down on fraud, SS7 keeps circuits available, because if the called number is busy, or unavailable, there's no point in setting up a line between your local switch and the switch at the far end.
In the deepest bowels of a switching office, usually near the back, you'll see SS7 racks. These connect from and between local, long-distance and other switches. It's what you'd call, "Back Office," network, similar to the network used by the telecoms to manage their servers your traffic go across but you'll never touch. Such as 3G data going through PCF after it's left the mobile switch, and before it hits an internet backbone ATM. So in simple terms, you'd have to break in, figure out the network, and then figure out a 2nd break in to get to the SS7, and then you'd be in a very small part of the network.
Honestly, if you're going to be doing that much effort, you're NOT going after SS7. Just hack the 3-letter agencies or other LEO server for court-approved wiretapping that is hanging off the switching network and you're in anything, everything, anywhere.
I'm at work so I don't have time to wade through all the comments, but you might look at http://www.pulselink.com/ They do ethernet over coax, which if I recall goes well over gigabit speeds in some cases.
Besides, we also have recent precedence on this. There are laws which prohibited certain anti-competitive behavior for newspapers. If you stifle the channels of communication, say the printing press in the 1800s, then you control the narrative(s). Today, the Internet is uniquely in that very same position. If you allow a privately owned organization to take self-serving priorities, with no competitive alternatives available, then you are again in a position where the narrative is dictated. Let's say Comcast buys Fox, and now only Fox content streams quickly. A Comcast subscriber decides to hear the alternative side of the narrative, say from MSNBC or CNN, but they get constant "spinning wheels," as they wait. Occasionally they get resets (as ISPs have been caught doing to P2P), or accidental DNS redirects to blackholes.
Also, the Internet was originally developed by the government and universities, and did not prioritize traffic. Imagine, for example, if GPS were to be "bought" by GE. You can only get fine positioning if you pay $x a month, but if you don't, you get 200m accuracy. Maybe this is your street to turn on, maybe it was a block back.
Here lately, seems their day at school would have been moot as they are led to a waiting black SUV. Then, SWAT would move into their house and take everything that plugs into a wall and has Ethernet capabilities. Think I'm joking?
"You may not care about justice, but your organizations lack of concern for those princibles are exactly why I just see them as a gang of murderers."
How do you know what I care about? You don't even have a basic understanding of how a strike or target package gets put together, and yet, come to a stated conclusion. I'll assume this will fall on deaf ears, but take some time to understand a topic before condemning. First, every member in the US military goes through LOAC training every year. If you're a cook or a sniper, you know The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Then, Rules of Engagement (RoE), which any US military member involved with the application of kinetic force (e.g. snipers, infantry, fighter pilots, etc) is trained and held accountable. Then, understand how how the military gets information from people, and then you might BEGIN to understand the premise of what's happening. I can't find open source (read: unclassified) reports on how the target packages are put together, so I'll avoid specifics, but I did allude to it in my original message. This also is still incomplete because there are also Military Lawyers involved. Yes, a lawyer can say, "NO GO," when everything else says, "GO!".
No one hates war more than a war fighter. 100,000+ Americans did not decide they really wanted to go visit Afghanistan for sun and fun, but political and other factors that manifested after Sept 11, 2001 changed things.
An airstrike does not happen in your scenario for two main reasons (among many others): Source grade and single source rules.
First, your Guy C is an unknown. His source report will grade him very low. It will be low because he's never reported before, nothing he said is corroborated through 3rd, unrelated sources and for some other reasons. All source reports are given a grade and only reports above a certain grade are acted upon. The rest are treated as, "stuff you might read on the internet."
Second, no strike package is getting approved with a single source HUMINT...even if it's graded at the very top (reliable from previous experience, etc). I don't want to get more specific but let's say very smart people are 3 steps ahead in thinking this scenario through and how to avoid the mistakes.
Your scenario does play out with the DEA in the US, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this article or my previous comments.
Do you see free market innovation thriving with DMCA despite the apparent lack of innovation?
Articulation of my question: When I buy a car, I can modify it. If people like my modification they can view it at my leisure and tinker themselves. GM doesn't sue me, and if I open a business to work on other GM cars to do similar GM vehicle modifications, then I have little legal exposure. However, with DMCA, GM can shut down a video if it's "suspected" I've infringed on a digital asset, and I can't legally sell modifications of their digital asset. This is why we see every new technology for digital streaming of data run a gauntlet of legal hurdles, which in turn stifles new innovation in the area of digital property.
Very good articulated and supported point which is valid, however, the targeting is no longer the guys with an idea. Meaning, 5 years ago you'd have targeted the emplacers (the guy with a shovel, or in your analogy, an idea). With time, the lesson was learned the effect was small and it is relatively ineffective. Now, you go up the chain and after those who enable others to become more effective. Let me give an example, let's say AQ has three targets in the US: A general officer, a private and an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer).
Taking out the General is symbolic but has very little impact on the effectivness of the US Army. If you take out a private, there are 10-20 others identically trained and with similar levels of proficiency. However, the NCO leads several squads. The NCO is a trainer, mentor, coach, knowledge manager and adult babysitter.
Taking the NCO out has a real effect on the battlefield as General Officer orders may not get correctly implemented, new troops may not come up to speed (read: battle effective) as fast, etc.
So, the best target for having an effect on battle is the NCO. The US and NATO are not after the General or the Privates... yes if there's a target of opportunity, a real threat, and the RoE/LoAC allows, a shot is taken, but the active targeting is at the NCO level. I wish I could be more specific but I won't. Just as most of what you read in mainstream or see in the movies about computers, technology, etc is wrong, so is the supposed, "wanton carnage from UAVs bombing everyone." I spent 3 years watching hundreds of strikes and you couldn't even apply most of what I read here to the exceptions, much less the "norm." People read a few articles and suddenly are experts on tactical military operations 1/2 way around the world (ignoring the few who incorrectly refer to it as "strategic bombing").
You're pretty close which is good considering the lack of credible information available in this article, and in general on/. The drone strikes don't get a few henchmen and one or two leaders. Are leaders targeted? Absolutely. However, the real push is to get the people who have an __EFFECT__ on the battlefield. If killing bad guy A leaves an organization, which has a deputy, without a leader, but killing bad guy B eliminates a guy who trains 10 others every week how to create bombs, then guy B get's the prioritized assets (an armed, eye in the sky escort if you will). The author of this cited article doesn't really understand who's targeting and who's effectively taken out. I don't know if it's because a university researcher stateside doesn't/won't have a need-to-know and the clearance to review SIGINT, HUMINT, and other intellegence on the effects of UAV strikes. I can say her stated conclusions are detached from reality.
The US has only performed strategic bombing twice, and it was back in WWII over Japan. Nuclear bombs are strategic. A GBU dropped from a Predator, Reaper, of manned fighter is tactical bombing.
Slashdot Mirror
So many fake things I did. OH! And we even stood up a Training Squadron, 534th TRS at Vandenberg to train fake satellite operators!! It's a shame only my last years teaching was to people flying real satellites. I guess we had good practice from years of faking it.
Your net is too small. Middle Easterners have been murdering millions for thousands of years, not hundreds. Look up the origins of Wahhabism. It started shortly after the death of Christ. The "Crusades" is often cast as a response in 1095 to Christians being murdered by Muslims, while crossing the Mediterranean. So that's 925 years ago that people on a large scale started getting pissed off about it.
The book "5 Pillars of Islam" really explains it well. And it's depressing when you realize just how long people have been killing each other over their invisible friend, beliefs, etc.
I used to say, of all the facts, press get about 40%. Of the 40% they probably only capture and understand 40%. Leaving us with 16% of the original. With the 16% they accurately present 40% in context, which leaves the reader with the ability to discern about 7% of what's actually going on in any situation. The more of an expert you are in ANY field, the more you realize how stupid our press, media, etc have become. They're great at sensationalism, but suck at everything else. Miley Cyrus gets front page while genocide runs on page 6. We are also at fault. 100% of teens can identify Miley Cyrus, while probably 20% can ID Biden, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, etc.
Great Britain thought this too in 1750's, 1760s, and not so much after that. :D
Don't be so quick to attribute deaths in Syria to gun related deaths. I personally watched ISR video where they decided to save ammunition by switching to a large blade (looked like a machete). They lined up people near Yazadi on a bridge over a river. They had the people lean over the bridge railing, and then slit their throats. The lifeless bodies were then kicked into the river. Thousands died without a single bullet.
Makes sense. Most anti-social behavior appears when populations are stressed. Low numbers, there are a low number of social issues from anti-social behaviors. Start over-crowding or making resources scarce and then issues start popping up. Probably is statistically linked to depression, suicide, and similar problems. I'm guessing though.
Holy shit balls. I wish people with your capability to understand basic tenants of gun ownership wrote our laws. Not dumbshits who say ARs left them crying, and somehow making a magazine release illegal (bullet buttons, etc) is safer. If gun ownership was an underlying root cause, homicides would be huge in Oklahoma and Texas compared to the NorthEast (Maine, NH, NY, etc). I do think there's a social-economic link, so I don't 100% agree with your points. However, you are able to logically work through the debate. Phuck I wish there were more people like you in the national debate on guns.
At the layer 2 or Rf layer yes. However the news is never that technically educated or contextual. They're referring to layer 5, or application encryption.
Now that we xenophobically blocked Syrian refugees, now the Governors have announced they will keep Amierica safe by banning cell phones. "The terrorists used cell phones and this new technology they learned from Snowden (aka Moldemort) called SMS. We must not be threatened by this illegal usage of dangerous technology." Rumor has it they're going after books next and plan big book burnings and witch drownings. "I know at least one of those ISIS phuckers read a Harry Potter book," Texas governor was overheard saying.
For the people asking why intel communities aren't shutting them down: They're intel sources. Why would you shut down accounts when they tell you TTPs, SOPs, areas of influence, capabilities, locations (eg. idiot Twitters a pic of the ISIS HQ, which is then bombed within 24 hours), etc. Besides, no manning for this as there's no DoD or IC requirements to "shut down propaganda accounts."
Because in Europe, they'll pull you over for not passing, while cruising in the left lane. I drove a rental around Belgium and Germany, and was warned by quite a few people to stay out of the left two lanes (assuming 3+ lane) I've watched CHP (California Highway Patrol) roll up on a left lane squatter, cruise for about 1-2 miles behind, and then pass on the right. Which, technically, I think passing on the right is also illegal to go along with the impeding. The only place I've seen here enforce is CHP up north, around Monterey, where retirees in motorhome back up 4+ cars going up hills.
Your issue is very similar to what Twitch streamers go through with delay between audio and video. I'd suggest checking out OBS and there are quite a few how-to videos on YouTube to show you how to sync.
"Preview" is your friend. I'd use it every time as a suggestion. Line breaks are stripped out, just as they have been for many many years on /. However, you can use HyperTextMarkupLanguage (HTML), such as P and BR, to get the spacing.
Late-2012 Mac Mini
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
OWC 500Mb SSD drive
16 Gb memory (upgrade from OWC)
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Toshiba 32" TV as the monitor
El Gato HD game capture for streaming XBOX360 on Twitch.TV ( Johnny4848 )
No problems to date. Of course, use Magic Trackpad and Apple wireless keyboard with it.
Besides, cops seem all geared up in tactical battle rattle (stun grenades on occasion, multiple sets of cuffs, body armor, etc), what's another 12 oz external Lithium Ion battery pack?
If I break into your house, and then walk into your main hallway, and then say, "There is a security flaw in your home! From this point in your hallway I can listen to any room, or walk down freely into any room." As you're looking at your front door splintered from the battering ram I hit it with to get in, would you call it a "hack," a flaw or something to be concerned about how your hallway(s) go through your house? No, you'd say, "The hallway is fine, I need a stronger front door. BTW, the Glock I'm holding is loaded."
When I start to read, "SS7 was designed in the 80s," I already know I'm dealing wtih a mental midget. Actually, SS7 begain due to the first ever hackers. Remember 2600? As in, 2600 Hz was the signaling frequency for a landline switch. Throw that tone, and you could make calls (for free if it was a payphone). Hence, telecoms came up with an idea to do out of band signaling, which eventually became SS7. So, saying you can "hack" SS7 is very misleading because all SS7 does is coordinate call set up. That "ringing" you hear as you wait for the far, distant switch to reply that the called line is available, is a "comfort tone," as SS7 does it's work. Besides cutting down on fraud, SS7 keeps circuits available, because if the called number is busy, or unavailable, there's no point in setting up a line between your local switch and the switch at the far end.
In the deepest bowels of a switching office, usually near the back, you'll see SS7 racks. These connect from and between local, long-distance and other switches. It's what you'd call, "Back Office," network, similar to the network used by the telecoms to manage their servers your traffic go across but you'll never touch. Such as 3G data going through PCF after it's left the mobile switch, and before it hits an internet backbone ATM. So in simple terms, you'd have to break in, figure out the network, and then figure out a 2nd break in to get to the SS7, and then you'd be in a very small part of the network.
Honestly, if you're going to be doing that much effort, you're NOT going after SS7. Just hack the 3-letter agencies or other LEO server for court-approved wiretapping that is hanging off the switching network and you're in anything, everything, anywhere.
I'm at work so I don't have time to wade through all the comments, but you might look at http://www.pulselink.com/ They do ethernet over coax, which if I recall goes well over gigabit speeds in some cases.
Besides, we also have recent precedence on this. There are laws which prohibited certain anti-competitive behavior for newspapers. If you stifle the channels of communication, say the printing press in the 1800s, then you control the narrative(s). Today, the Internet is uniquely in that very same position. If you allow a privately owned organization to take self-serving priorities, with no competitive alternatives available, then you are again in a position where the narrative is dictated. Let's say Comcast buys Fox, and now only Fox content streams quickly. A Comcast subscriber decides to hear the alternative side of the narrative, say from MSNBC or CNN, but they get constant "spinning wheels," as they wait. Occasionally they get resets (as ISPs have been caught doing to P2P), or accidental DNS redirects to blackholes.
Also, the Internet was originally developed by the government and universities, and did not prioritize traffic. Imagine, for example, if GPS were to be "bought" by GE. You can only get fine positioning if you pay $x a month, but if you don't, you get 200m accuracy. Maybe this is your street to turn on, maybe it was a block back.
Here lately, seems their day at school would have been moot as they are led to a waiting black SUV. Then, SWAT would move into their house and take everything that plugs into a wall and has Ethernet capabilities. Think I'm joking?
"You may not care about justice, but your organizations lack of concern for those princibles are exactly why I just see them as a gang of murderers."
How do you know what I care about? You don't even have a basic understanding of how a strike or target package gets put together, and yet, come to a stated conclusion. I'll assume this will fall on deaf ears, but take some time to understand a topic before condemning. First, every member in the US military goes through LOAC training every year. If you're a cook or a sniper, you know The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Then, Rules of Engagement (RoE), which any US military member involved with the application of kinetic force (e.g. snipers, infantry, fighter pilots, etc) is trained and held accountable. Then, understand how how the military gets information from people, and then you might BEGIN to understand the premise of what's happening. I can't find open source (read: unclassified) reports on how the target packages are put together, so I'll avoid specifics, but I did allude to it in my original message. This also is still incomplete because there are also Military Lawyers involved. Yes, a lawyer can say, "NO GO," when everything else says, "GO!".
No one hates war more than a war fighter. 100,000+ Americans did not decide they really wanted to go visit Afghanistan for sun and fun, but political and other factors that manifested after Sept 11, 2001 changed things.
An airstrike does not happen in your scenario for two main reasons (among many others): Source grade and single source rules.
First, your Guy C is an unknown. His source report will grade him very low. It will be low because he's never reported before, nothing he said is corroborated through 3rd, unrelated sources and for some other reasons. All source reports are given a grade and only reports above a certain grade are acted upon. The rest are treated as, "stuff you might read on the internet."
Second, no strike package is getting approved with a single source HUMINT...even if it's graded at the very top (reliable from previous experience, etc). I don't want to get more specific but let's say very smart people are 3 steps ahead in thinking this scenario through and how to avoid the mistakes.
Your scenario does play out with the DEA in the US, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this article or my previous comments.
Do you see free market innovation thriving with DMCA despite the apparent lack of innovation?
Articulation of my question: When I buy a car, I can modify it. If people like my modification they can view it at my leisure and tinker themselves. GM doesn't sue me, and if I open a business to work on other GM cars to do similar GM vehicle modifications, then I have little legal exposure. However, with DMCA, GM can shut down a video if it's "suspected" I've infringed on a digital asset, and I can't legally sell modifications of their digital asset. This is why we see every new technology for digital streaming of data run a gauntlet of legal hurdles, which in turn stifles new innovation in the area of digital property.
Very good articulated and supported point which is valid, however, the targeting is no longer the guys with an idea. Meaning, 5 years ago you'd have targeted the emplacers (the guy with a shovel, or in your analogy, an idea). With time, the lesson was learned the effect was small and it is relatively ineffective. Now, you go up the chain and after those who enable others to become more effective. Let me give an example, let's say AQ has three targets in the US: A general officer, a private and an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer).
Taking out the General is symbolic but has very little impact on the effectivness of the US Army. If you take out a private, there are 10-20 others identically trained and with similar levels of proficiency. However, the NCO leads several squads. The NCO is a trainer, mentor, coach, knowledge manager and adult babysitter.
Taking the NCO out has a real effect on the battlefield as General Officer orders may not get correctly implemented, new troops may not come up to speed (read: battle effective) as fast, etc.
So, the best target for having an effect on battle is the NCO. The US and NATO are not after the General or the Privates... yes if there's a target of opportunity, a real threat, and the RoE/LoAC allows, a shot is taken, but the active targeting is at the NCO level. I wish I could be more specific but I won't. Just as most of what you read in mainstream or see in the movies about computers, technology, etc is wrong, so is the supposed, "wanton carnage from UAVs bombing everyone." I spent 3 years watching hundreds of strikes and you couldn't even apply most of what I read here to the exceptions, much less the "norm." People read a few articles and suddenly are experts on tactical military operations 1/2 way around the world (ignoring the few who incorrectly refer to it as "strategic bombing").
You're pretty close which is good considering the lack of credible information available in this article, and in general on /. The drone strikes don't get a few henchmen and one or two leaders. Are leaders targeted? Absolutely. However, the real push is to get the people who have an __EFFECT__ on the battlefield. If killing bad guy A leaves an organization, which has a deputy, without a leader, but killing bad guy B eliminates a guy who trains 10 others every week how to create bombs, then guy B get's the prioritized assets (an armed, eye in the sky escort if you will). The author of this cited article doesn't really understand who's targeting and who's effectively taken out. I don't know if it's because a university researcher stateside doesn't/won't have a need-to-know and the clearance to review SIGINT, HUMINT, and other intellegence on the effects of UAV strikes. I can say her stated conclusions are detached from reality.
The US has only performed strategic bombing twice, and it was back in WWII over Japan. Nuclear bombs are strategic. A GBU dropped from a Predator, Reaper, of manned fighter is tactical bombing.