So, 1.5 million a pop(not counting the necessary radar, integration, staffing, and maintenance), per turret(larger ships would almost certainly need more than one, to prevent attacks on their blind spots), to deal with a problem that affects under 1% of the ships passing through that area?
Straw man. You're talking about turning freighters into warships. That would be dumb, but it's unnecessary, as they're up against leaky tubs crewed by a bunch of amateurs with small arms. The.50 cal Browning would make much more sense. The round is heavy enough to blow right through a pirate scow, and they lay down an impressive amount of fire. You can get armor piercing, incendiary, tracer, and just plain ball ammo in 50 BMG. That's all you need.
Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship? Last time I checked, snipers did not use moving platforms, or aim at rapidly moving targets . Therefore, range would be greatly reduced.
It seemed to work for these (admittedly highly competent) snipers.
It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
Excellent point: a couple of snipers armed with 5.56mm rifles (which is what I'm guessing you mean by "Armalite") would lack the kind of definitive firepower that brings about peace. In fact, it would be a highly uninformed choice; no snipers (certainly not in the U.S. Armed forces) use anything lighter than a.308. However, keeping your concerns in mind, I would suggest, at the very least, something like this...even if you miss the pirates, the holes in their boat spurting water will be damn scary. Of course, why take chances, spring for one or two of these babies, and you will truly make an impression. Note the photo shows the machine gun being fired from a small patrol boat.
The old Browning 50 cal is cheap and ubiquitous. If your ammo budget allows, there's mounts where two or four of these MGs are ganged together. Seeing that quadruple line of tracers heading for you is the definition of "scary".
If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.
You mean casualties on the freighter? Is the whole crew standing to attention at the railing? Are you assuming suicidal tendencies on the part of the crew, or some misguided notion of a "fair fight"? No, unarmed crew will be in a safe room below decks and behind steel bulkheads. The gunners will presumably at least be behind sand-bags. And why is the pirates' armory so much more fearsome than the defenders'? AKs fire 7.62 x 39 ammo, which is not a notable improvement over the 5.56 round. Sure, an RPG will do damage to the structure of a ship, but it would be very unlikely to be able to sink it. We are talking about huge ships here, not pleasure yachts.
Bottom line: I suggest before coming up with idiotic suggestions, you actually google a bit of naval history. (And yes, I did do a feasibility study on missile attack defenses based on cannon, not rifles, and even they are not a very good defense.)
Wow, I should google. I guess that's become the new excuse for not giving an argument—"just google it, and prove I'm right". Naval history, huh? Will I find that 18th century armed merchantmen or British ships of the line were ineffective against pirates? Oh, and you did a study, huh? And it made you an expert? I don't see any sign of your expertise here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Care to publish a link?
Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have responded to the wrong topic. The cited study concerned the effect on sexual arousal in males when exposed to the smell of female tears. I don't know whether the study's conclusions are correct or not, but I do know that "rape" is not synonymous with "sexual intercourse"—and never has been. You ought, therefore, to find a forum where a discussion of rape laws, women's rights, and marriage customs are relevant.
Well, that's the classic argument. But I would contend the opposite. Our knowledge of our nasty history hasn't stopped us from repeating ourselves again and again, after all. Perhaps we would be better served by making the very *concept* of genocide or war simply inconceivable. I think we would be a lot better off with "But we've never done this, we've always been better than that!" than with "We'll, here we go yet again."
I share your skepticism about the proposition that a knowledge of history helps us avoid making the same mistakes as were made in the past. That's because it's mostly too late by the time we are able to draw parallels between the present and the historical past. In other words, the present has become history by the time we figure out what historical parallel we should have applied to it. In yet other words, people are slow.
However, I can't say that the path of ignorance has much to recommend it, either. Do you seriously think that killing lots of "them" is a complicated idea that can't be invented from scratch? Up until the horrific excursions of 1942-1945, the Germans were a "civilized" people who "just didn't do that sort of thing". They weren't falling back on a tried and true Germanic technique that they looked up in a history book.
If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.
Right. An image search algorithm that does this well would indeed be technologically interesting...maybe even unique, as it's my understanding that current "face recognition" technologies don't work that well. Certainly, the Department of Homeland Security would be very interested. But patent the "general idea" is exactly what they did. It's clear nobody that nobody's been home in the U.S. Patent Office for some time...but I bet they keep collecting their paychecks.
Yeah, I too remember Kodachrome 25 from my 35mm film SLR days. I loved that film—if you had enough light, a fast lens, and the right kind of subject, you could get some astonishing shots. As someone remarked, it's probably all in the dyes and process...it just seemed like magic to me. The colors were intense, but they looked right, somehow.
FYI, the Afghan girl's eyes look grey when I look at the picture on this crappy LCD monitor I'm using.
If I have a guarantee that nobody knows who I am when I say something then it follows that I have a guarantee that nobody can do anything to me because of what I said.
Laws can always protect freedom of speech in real life, but they can't protect you against someone who disagrees with you enough to want to do some damage to you and does so before law enforcement can step in. They also can't stop people not wanting to be your friend or not wanting to do business with you because of your point of view.
I started using a fake name on the internet mainly to avoid spam. Heavens, if I had something very important to say, I'd sign it with my real name, and I wouldn't do it here. Yes, there are electronic fora in which I do use my true name. Slashdot is a geek kaffeeklatsch. It's fun, but not deep. If you do have something very important to say, then I think you should do it with your real name—I doubt someone is going to pay any attention to you if you fear to stand behind your words. Besides, the degree of anonymity afforded by using a fake name on Slashdot is minimal; I'm quite sure that any government or sufficiently motivated individual can find out who I am.
Freedom of speech should grant me the right to say anything I like with no consequences to myself, not just from the government. There is nothing you can do to stop people from treating you different in subtle ways if they know what you said and they strongly disagree with you. Therefore, anonymity is the only way to achieve that. If anonymity is not "true" freedom of speech then "true" freedom of speech is impossible to gain. Life isn't perfect, anonymity is the closest thing to freedom that we have.
This sounds like a fearful, tremulous sort of freedom to me. You want to be insulated against all consequences of speaking out. Do you also want to be respected? Do you expect people to listen to you? If yes, then I think you're going to have to be a bit braver, and stand openly behind your words. You will have to talk to people, even argue with them. There's a trade-off here, I think: greater anonymity brings with it greater obscurity. The most perfectly anonymous voice is one that is never even heard.
Perl 6 spec is still in development, not done yet. Rakudo is an implementation of something that is not done yet, and pugs even less so.
Anyone who uses this for any remotely production related is insane.
Face it folks, Larry killed Perl.
I usually do not use the very latest version of anything on a critical project. The only reason to do this is if the new version has a feature you absolutely cannot do without. Even then, you should be aware that you're taking a big risk. I'd wait for it to age a bit, and maybe use the last known stable version, while other people try out the new stuff. That being said, I find your comment to be a bit on the panicky side. It's a bit early for an obit on Perl.
In typical programming, when a comment block accompanies some procedure explaining
what that does, this comment is a short paragraph and the code - a bulky flowing construct.
Perl, on the other hand, is very dense and with many idiosyncrasies. For example:
# Count the number equal letters (in same positions) in two strings a and b.
$n =()= ($a ^ $b) =~/\0/g;
Yes, but you do not have to write it like this. You can choose a more readable, more explicit way to write this in Perl. I always try to avoid excessive cleverness when I write code; one reason is that I'll forget what it does, and have to figure out all over again. Trying to squeeze as much trickery as you can into a single line of code is just a kid's game.
This problem has been around forever. Management thinks that "managing human resources" is a special and oh-so-useful skill-set—only HR knows how to hire the right people. This results in a situation where both the candidates and the techies who are actually going to be working with the new hire have to circumvent HR. Think of it as an intelligence test. It's usually not much of a challenge.
...The weirdest part about this all is that half the population seems to believe the threat of terrorism is coming from some Muslims living in the desert. Totally blind for the real terrorism we face everyday, put in place by the so called government. Don't believe? Start a blog, become a journalist or try to get on an airplane without having some dick take a look at your dick, or even worse, your 5-y/o dick. Terrorism from Muslims can be a threat, however, the only terrorism I actually witness everyday is from white guys in suits.
Just half the population? I think it's more than 98% who haven't noticed that America has been yanked out from under our feet and been replaced by the "Homeland". Nobody has rights in the Homeland because individual rights might hamper the herculaean work of the Department of Homeland Security to make us all perfectly safe. They just haven't changed the flag yet—henceforth, we will fly our true colors: The Brown Underpants of Fear.
...it contains allegations on which the prosecutor's indictment was based.
Had there been an indictment, we would be having a different discussion....
I stand corrected. At this point in the discussion, I was not yet clear about this rather startling fact. I should have said "...it contains allegations made by the Swedish government that have served as the justification for Her Britannic Majesty's government to hold Mr. Assange in solitary confinement, and to consider his extradition to Sweden.
I've not had much trust in nor respect for Interpol since I learned that Reinhard Heydrich (a.k.a. "The Butcher of Prague") was president of Interpol from 24 August 1940 to 4 June 1942.
Please do not speak of things you obviously do not have a clue about..
If you are convicted of rape in Sweden you get to spend 2-10 years in jail, depending on the age of the victim and the amount of violence that was used.
Maybe so, but the link given by A.C. leads to the most informative article about the Assange Affair that I have seen.
I here excerpt my favorite parts:
One of the women said in her statement to police that she was obsessed with meeting the tall, wiry man she had come to see as a hero of free speech — "interesting, brave and admirable."
For two weeks after seeing an Assange TV interview, the 27-year-old woman devoured news reports about him. Then one night, she Googled his name and learned he was giving a lecture in Sweden on Aug. 14.
The woman contacted the organizers and offered to do chores if she were allowed to attend. She turned up in a bright pink sweater and sat in the front row — looking out of place amid a sea of journalists in somber suits. The ice was broken when she agreed to buy a cable for Assange's computer.
I like a woman who knows what she wants; note the carefully orchestrated campaign, the subtlety of execution. She bought him a cable for his computer Surely, that can only spell Geek Love! How could poor Julian resist?
She was invited to a post-lecture dinner, she said, and seated next to Assange. They flirted, she told police: At one point Assange hand-fed her cheese and bread. The police report says she found it "flattering."
Bleah. Disgusting. How can people do that in public? Did he spoon-feed her saccharine also?
She and Assange went to the movies, where she said they kissed. Two days later she brought him home.
But by then, she told police, "the passion and excitement had disappeared."
On the train ride to her place, she said, Assange logged on to his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter. "He paid more attention to the computer than to her," the report said.
Disaster! A clear mismatch, as she was not googling on her own laptop.
They got to her apartment at midnight — and what happened next "felt very dull and boring," she told police. She later alleged, according to a British lawyer, that Assange pinned her down and refused to wear a condom.
The bold type in the last paragraph was added by your humble editor. I think we have here the nub of the matter, so to speak. But of course, we must also consider the woman behind Door Number 2:
The 31-year-old, a feminist scholar who was working for the organization that hosted Assange's Aug. 14 lecture, let him use her apartment while she was away on a trip. But she returned early, on the eve of his lecture, and the two agreed he could stay.
That night, they went out for dinner, returned to her place for tea, and, she said, became intimate. Later, in the middle of the night, she claimed in the police report, Assange sexually molested her. In a London court Tuesday, a lawyer accused Assange of having unprotected sex with the woman while she was asleep.
Afterward, he stayed in the apartment for nearly a week.
Again, bold type provided by yours truly. I can only guess what activities are covered by "became intimate", and the sex-while-asleep bit requires some context and clarification. However, it seems odd that the feminist scholar let him stay in her apartment for a week after an act that she now classifies as "rape".
Ah, but here comes the train-wreck:
During that time, the first woman tried unsuccessfully to reach Assange and, on Aug. 20, tracked down the apartment where he was staying. The two women got to talking.
After swapping Assange stories, they jointly contacted police — and filed rape complaints.
The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.
The summary implies no such thing. The summary says:
The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."
This is an impartial statement of events. The police report was leaked. Presumably (I must presume, as no one has posted a link to the actual report.), it contains allegations on which the prosecutor's indictment was based. The summary then proceeds to state Mr. Assange's version of events. It endorses neither the police report, nor Mr. Assange's denials.
I guess that Slashdot, Taco, and letsurock have forgotten that when the women says stop and the man doesn't, it is rape, even here in the U.S.
I don't follow. Are you actually saying that because they make or permit posting on the Assange affair, they are pro-rape?
As for "when the women (sic) says stop"...well, it's not quite that simple, is it? Let's pretend we're all adults here. Some women like to play games of "let's pretend", sometimes it's literally too late to stop, sometimes signals are simply not understood. I agree that, ideally, if either sexual partner wishes to terminate the activities, they should be forthwith terminated (er, the activities, I mean). And in an ideal world, that would always happen.
Legally, such "rapes" are very difficult to prosecute in any country that has a sensible code of laws. If it is clear that the woman willingly began to have sex with someone, and she alleges that she cried "stop" at some point (perhaps because her partner was doing something she didn't like), unless the partner admits that this happened—that he heard, and did not stop—then this will be a case where the only two witnesses to the alleged crime contradict each other. If there is evidence of physical injury, that is indeed another matter.
There is a simple way to avoid these complications: don't go to bed with people you don't know. Take note, Mr. Assange.
Yeah, I've changed my mind on this issue, as is reflected in my reply to Khayman. Quite simply, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is a deception. It implies a degree of personal freedom that is not inherent in the actual policy of the U.S. military.
Things like "gay pride demonstrations" on military bases are exactly what I am afraid of—and I think it's what most people who oppose changing the policy fear.
It would help if the persons who are supporting the change were better communicators. First, they should point out that "don't ask, don't tell" does not imply any degree of tolerance for homosexuals in the military, that it is enough to trigger a discharge if the military finds out even through indirect means that a soldier is homosexual. The policy is not what it appears to be. Second, the proponents of change should be specific about the changes they want. As I stated in another posting, the rules should be the same for everybody. For example, the military could make any public display of affection an offense. It could make public advocacy of sexual matters (homosexual, heterosexual, whatever) out of bounds. I'm pretty sure that political rallies are already forbidden on military bases. I know this will not do away with actual oppression by individuals so inclined—but at least it would remove the official cover for such actions.
I've had homosexual friends and co-workers. Most of them were nice people (well the friends, for sure). However, there was one exception. This guy would wear hot pants (tight short shorts) on cute little suspenders to work (it was an unusually tolerant employer—the official dress policy was "at least wear underclothes"). He never missed an opportunity to demonstrate just how gay he was. His non-work talk invariably centered on sexual matters. Once, a female co-worker and I were having a conference in an office; the door was open. Mr. Hot Pants walked by, stopped, pointed to a tin of tea on the desk in front of us, and said "Hey, are those condoms?". Neither of us knew what to say. I don't think I have to tell you just how much I did not like Mr. Hot Pants. Do you get the picture? That's the kind of thing I don't want in the work place.
This employer was a bit too tolerant, but you did wind up knowing everybody's sexual orientation. My boss was a lesbian with two kids. I don't know where the kids came from, but they were obviously well cared for. She was also absolutely the best boss I ever had. My respect for her is immense. She helped me when I needed help, and stayed out of my way when I was making progress. She lobbied to get me stock options and annual raises in excess of 10% (this was during the boom days, before the big dot.com bust). During a very bad time of my life, a homosexual man saved me from an injustice by telling the truth on the witness stand in court. He volunteered to testify, at considerable risk to his personal safety.
I think our society has to get sane on this topic, and that admonition applies to both sides in the dispute. Like Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along?". Yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen.
Sure, feel free to use our conversation as you see fit. It was good to converse with you, as always. While I have had to seriously revise my views on "don't ask, don't tell", I don't think we see eye to eye on the gay marriage thing...Maybe I will write a short piece on what I think of that issue; writing always helps me to clarify my thoughts (if only because I notice that I'm saying something stupid).
You may be right about the disproportionality of the punishments meted out to homosexual soldiers who discuss their relationships vis a vis heterosexual soldiers who do the same thing. But is it really true that heterosexual offenders always get away with little or no punishment. For example, what if a male heterosexual soldier discusses his sexual exploits in front of a woman soldier after she has made clear that she doesn't want to hear this, and she then lodges an official complaint? I would expect him to be treated quite harshly. I don't know how the Army really handles this kind of case—though I do know that the Army has always had something of a Puritan streak when it comes to sexual matters, and know for a fact that extramarital affairs have often called down severe punishment on the participants (especially if both are in the military). This is actually quite sensible, as such a betrayal undermines the mutual trust that is an absolute requirement for soldiers who may go into battle.
If the facts of the case are indeed as they are presented by the blogger that you linked, then I agree that the woman officer's punishment was outrageous and unjust. However, the link from the blog to the original news article is broken, so I'm left in some doubt about what really happened.
I'm trying to be reasonable about this. Perhaps I'm not as well-informed as I should be. I had thought that "don't ask..." meant that homosexuality is an offense only when a soldier flaunts his sexual nature. But now as I think about it, I wonder why there should be special rules for homosexuals. I think everyone should be bound by the common rules of courtesy and mutual respect. What I'm afraid of is that the gay rights crowd wants to make homosexuals immune from all rules—perhaps permitting flagrant sexual acts in the barracks, and (oh, the horror) pink underwear. OK, maybe I'm being silly, but the activists don't seem to have made their goals clear.
THAT is why nobody has done a broad based attack against PLC gear before. It will blow back on them. Once you realize what a PLC is and how widely it is used, you will also realize that an attack against this platform is the equivalent of a nuclear attack in the software world. In the case of a PC you only lose data. Most data can be restored. In this case, you lose an industrial process and it may be significantly damaged. An attack will almost certainly blow back on you and your neighbors. It will make the economic malaise of the present look tame by comparison.
Might there be people who don't care about "blowback"? People who now know that it's possible to write this kind of virus (one that targets PLCs), and who will gladly set a modified version of Stuxnet free to work its destructive "magic"? It's true that few states would want to do this—at least those that have a significant computer-PLC based infrastructure...but then there's always those "non-state actors". How to get viruses to propagate is well-known these days. All that would be needed is enough knowledge to broaden the spectrum of PLCs that will be manipulated by the payload of the Stuxnet descendants, and a person so inclined could generate a world-wide catastrophe. Heck, a group of 15 year old kids could probably do it.
I think that Stuxnet was probably created at the behest of a state—the U.S. and Israel seem likely suspects. However, these creative people have made a terrible mistake: when the wrong people create a Stuxnet variant...well that is the definition of "blowback".
...Comparing Don't ask Don't tell to the government sanctioned wholesale murder and persecution of gays is ridiculous. One limits their ability to serve openly in the military, the other makes it impossible for them to exist openly at all. The punishment for one is a discharge from the military, the other is death. The reality is Don't ask Don't tell would be gone already if it weren't for the fact that Congress still has a lot of old white men who are from a time when Blacks couldn't sit at the same lunch counter as them, as they die off the ridiculous policies that exist to placate their homophobia will be gone too.
I am having trouble understanding your viewpoint; perhaps you could help clarify things for me? I suppose it's true that I'm somewhat old. I studied at Berkeley from 1966-1970, and participated in lots of demonstrations—including those in support of the Black Panther Party, the Free Huey Newton campaign, and the Third World Liberation Front. Yet, I must have more in common now with those benighted bigots I fought against than you of the (presumably) younger generation—I don't see what's wrong with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I understand this policy to mean that mere evidence of homosexual inclinations or private behavior is not an offense as far as the U.S. Army is concerned. It becomes an issue only if individual soldiers choose to make an issue out of their sexual desires and practices. What's wrong with that? I think nobody should bring their sex life to work, and throw it in the faces of their fellow workers (or soldiers, in this case). I think it's odious to discuss one's sexual exploits at work, no matter what one's preferences are. What is the alternative to "don't ask, don't tell"? I can only assume it must be "Do ask, do tell". In other words, let's make a big deal out of everyone's sex lives. And I think that's repulsive. I don't want to hear about Corporal Jones having an affair with the Captain's wife, and I don't want to hear that Privates Bob and Bruce are getting it on. Please be careful to note what I'm saying: I am not offended by these things, I am offended when the participants insist on telling me about it.
However, that seems to be exactly what the opponents of the current policy want: homosexuals in the military should be free to tell everyone how wonderful being homosexual is, and what they like to do to each other, and so forth. (If I'm misunderstanding the goal of this movement, please do correct me.) I don't see why they should be allowed to conduct themselves in a way that I would find unacceptable for heterosexuals. You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time—but sometimes I think that today's homosexuals believe they just now invented it. Well, it's not that big a deal.
And yet 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.
I'm not sure how to understand this claim. What does it mean to "own n% of the wealth"? What is "wealth"? Do the rich have money lying around their villas in huge bulging bags? Do they earn 95% of all the salaries in the US? Do they have 95% of all money in the banks? Do they own 95% of all the real estate? Or maybe you are thinking about "paper" in the form of stocks, bonds, and IOUs? As it stands, your claim is meaningless. Yes, of course the rich are wealthy. That's called a "tautology". I think your statement really comes to saying, "being rich is evil".
It gets even more lopsided if you consider the top 1% of population, would would be considered rich by anyone's imagination, pay 39% of all income taxes.
Hmm. I suspect that your reasoning is something like this: "Because the rich own 95% of everything, they should...what? Pay 95% of all the taxes? But you don't say what the wealthiest 5% of the population pay in terms of income taxes...you just claim that the top 1% pay 39% of the income taxes. It seems reasonable that if you were to include the other 4%, it would add up to a nice chunk of money. Why don't you tell us how much the top 5% pay? I'm smelling funky statistics and cheap rhetoric here.
Disclaimer: I am not rich. I would like to be rich, but can't be bothered to wear a tie and do the bullshit you have to do to get rich. I am pissed as hell at the financial elite—the "best and brightest" who have just brought the world to the brink of economic collapse, and at the government whose "regulatory" agencies were either asleep at the wheel or actively collaborating. But that is only a small subset of the rich and powerful; mere wealth is not evil—stealing is evil.
Your last two paragraphs appear to be complete blather. "Hardware-accelerated social simulation circuits": zero meaning.
I'm sorry, but this made perfect sense to me. Maybe YOU are not allowing your brain to work with physical abstractions as if they were living entities, but some of us do, and it's a quite effective modeling tool, as the GP was trying to demonstrate.
With regard to the first sentence, I'm happy you feel that you understood something. As for the remainder of what I quoted, it makes no more sense than that which you claim to have understood.
Slashdot Mirror
And how much does the insurance and ransoms cost, as well as the liability of losing tens-hundres of millions of dollars worth of cargo compare?
And into whose pockets do the ransoms flow? What do they subsidize? This is not just about profit and loss.
So, 1.5 million a pop(not counting the necessary radar, integration, staffing, and maintenance), per turret(larger ships would almost certainly need more than one, to prevent attacks on their blind spots), to deal with a problem that affects under 1% of the ships passing through that area?
Straw man. You're talking about turning freighters into warships. That would be dumb, but it's unnecessary, as they're up against leaky tubs crewed by a bunch of amateurs with small arms. The .50 cal Browning would make much more sense. The round is heavy enough to blow right through a pirate scow, and they lay down an impressive amount of fire. You can get armor piercing, incendiary, tracer, and just plain ball ammo in 50 BMG. That's all you need.
This will not work because:
It seemed to work for these (admittedly highly competent) snipers.
It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
Excellent point: a couple of snipers armed with 5.56mm rifles (which is what I'm guessing you mean by "Armalite") would lack the kind of definitive firepower that brings about peace. In fact, it would be a highly uninformed choice; no snipers (certainly not in the U.S. Armed forces) use anything lighter than a .308. However, keeping your concerns in mind, I would suggest, at the very least, something like this...even if you miss the pirates, the holes in their boat spurting water will be damn scary. Of course, why take chances, spring for one or two of these babies, and you will truly make an impression. Note the photo shows the machine gun being fired from a small patrol boat.
The old Browning 50 cal is cheap and ubiquitous. If your ammo budget allows, there's mounts where two or four of these MGs are ganged together. Seeing that quadruple line of tracers heading for you is the definition of "scary".
If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.
You mean casualties on the freighter? Is the whole crew standing to attention at the railing? Are you assuming suicidal tendencies on the part of the crew, or some misguided notion of a "fair fight"? No, unarmed crew will be in a safe room below decks and behind steel bulkheads. The gunners will presumably at least be behind sand-bags. And why is the pirates' armory so much more fearsome than the defenders'? AKs fire 7.62 x 39 ammo, which is not a notable improvement over the 5.56 round. Sure, an RPG will do damage to the structure of a ship, but it would be very unlikely to be able to sink it. We are talking about huge ships here, not pleasure yachts.
Bottom line: I suggest before coming up with idiotic suggestions, you actually google a bit of naval history. (And yes, I did do a feasibility study on missile attack defenses based on cannon, not rifles, and even they are not a very good defense.)
Wow, I should google. I guess that's become the new excuse for not giving an argument—"just google it, and prove I'm right". Naval history, huh? Will I find that 18th century armed merchantmen or British ships of the line were ineffective against pirates? Oh, and you did a study, huh? And it made you an expert? I don't see any sign of your expertise here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Care to publish a link?
Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have responded to the wrong topic. The cited study concerned the effect on sexual arousal in males when exposed to the smell of female tears. I don't know whether the study's conclusions are correct or not, but I do know that "rape" is not synonymous with "sexual intercourse"—and never has been. You ought, therefore, to find a forum where a discussion of rape laws, women's rights, and marriage customs are relevant.
Well, that's the classic argument. But I would contend the opposite. Our knowledge of our nasty history hasn't stopped us from repeating ourselves again and again, after all. Perhaps we would be better served by making the very *concept* of genocide or war simply inconceivable. I think we would be a lot better off with "But we've never done this, we've always been better than that!" than with "We'll, here we go yet again."
I share your skepticism about the proposition that a knowledge of history helps us avoid making the same mistakes as were made in the past. That's because it's mostly too late by the time we are able to draw parallels between the present and the historical past. In other words, the present has become history by the time we figure out what historical parallel we should have applied to it. In yet other words, people are slow.
However, I can't say that the path of ignorance has much to recommend it, either. Do you seriously think that killing lots of "them" is a complicated idea that can't be invented from scratch? Up until the horrific excursions of 1942-1945, the Germans were a "civilized" people who "just didn't do that sort of thing". They weren't falling back on a tried and true Germanic technique that they looked up in a history book.
If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.
Right. An image search algorithm that does this well would indeed be technologically interesting...maybe even unique, as it's my understanding that current "face recognition" technologies don't work that well. Certainly, the Department of Homeland Security would be very interested. But patent the "general idea" is exactly what they did. It's clear nobody that nobody's been home in the U.S. Patent Office for some time...but I bet they keep collecting their paychecks.
Yeah, I too remember Kodachrome 25 from my 35mm film SLR days. I loved that film—if you had enough light, a fast lens, and the right kind of subject, you could get some astonishing shots. As someone remarked, it's probably all in the dyes and process...it just seemed like magic to me. The colors were intense, but they looked right, somehow.
FYI, the Afghan girl's eyes look grey when I look at the picture on this crappy LCD monitor I'm using.
If I have a guarantee that nobody knows who I am when I say something then it follows that I have a guarantee that nobody can do anything to me because of what I said.
Laws can always protect freedom of speech in real life, but they can't protect you against someone who disagrees with you enough to want to do some damage to you and does so before law enforcement can step in. They also can't stop people not wanting to be your friend or not wanting to do business with you because of your point of view.
I started using a fake name on the internet mainly to avoid spam. Heavens, if I had something very important to say, I'd sign it with my real name, and I wouldn't do it here. Yes, there are electronic fora in which I do use my true name. Slashdot is a geek kaffeeklatsch. It's fun, but not deep. If you do have something very important to say, then I think you should do it with your real name—I doubt someone is going to pay any attention to you if you fear to stand behind your words. Besides, the degree of anonymity afforded by using a fake name on Slashdot is minimal; I'm quite sure that any government or sufficiently motivated individual can find out who I am.
Freedom of speech should grant me the right to say anything I like with no consequences to myself, not just from the government. There is nothing you can do to stop people from treating you different in subtle ways if they know what you said and they strongly disagree with you. Therefore, anonymity is the only way to achieve that. If anonymity is not "true" freedom of speech then "true" freedom of speech is impossible to gain. Life isn't perfect, anonymity is the closest thing to freedom that we have.
This sounds like a fearful, tremulous sort of freedom to me. You want to be insulated against all consequences of speaking out. Do you also want to be respected? Do you expect people to listen to you? If yes, then I think you're going to have to be a bit braver, and stand openly behind your words. You will have to talk to people, even argue with them. There's a trade-off here, I think: greater anonymity brings with it greater obscurity. The most perfectly anonymous voice is one that is never even heard.
Perl 6 spec is still in development, not done yet. Rakudo is an implementation of something that is not done yet, and pugs even less so. Anyone who uses this for any remotely production related is insane. Face it folks, Larry killed Perl.
I usually do not use the very latest version of anything on a critical project. The only reason to do this is if the new version has a feature you absolutely cannot do without. Even then, you should be aware that you're taking a big risk. I'd wait for it to age a bit, and maybe use the last known stable version, while other people try out the new stuff. That being said, I find your comment to be a bit on the panicky side. It's a bit early for an obit on Perl.
In typical programming, when a comment block accompanies some procedure explaining what that does, this comment is a short paragraph and the code - a bulky flowing construct.
Perl, on the other hand, is very dense and with many idiosyncrasies. For example:
Yes, but you do not have to write it like this. You can choose a more readable, more explicit way to write this in Perl. I always try to avoid excessive cleverness when I write code; one reason is that I'll forget what it does, and have to figure out all over again. Trying to squeeze as much trickery as you can into a single line of code is just a kid's game.
This problem has been around forever. Management thinks that "managing human resources" is a special and oh-so-useful skill-set—only HR knows how to hire the right people. This results in a situation where both the candidates and the techies who are actually going to be working with the new hire have to circumvent HR. Think of it as an intelligence test. It's usually not much of a challenge.
...The weirdest part about this all is that half the population seems to believe the threat of terrorism is coming from some Muslims living in the desert. Totally blind for the real terrorism we face everyday, put in place by the so called government. Don't believe? Start a blog, become a journalist or try to get on an airplane without having some dick take a look at your dick, or even worse, your 5-y/o dick. Terrorism from Muslims can be a threat, however, the only terrorism I actually witness everyday is from white guys in suits.
Just half the population? I think it's more than 98% who haven't noticed that America has been yanked out from under our feet and been replaced by the "Homeland". Nobody has rights in the Homeland because individual rights might hamper the herculaean work of the Department of Homeland Security to make us all perfectly safe. They just haven't changed the flag yet—henceforth, we will fly our true colors: The Brown Underpants of Fear.
Had there been an indictment, we would be having a different discussion....
I stand corrected. At this point in the discussion, I was not yet clear about this rather startling fact. I should have said "...it contains allegations made by the Swedish government that have served as the justification for Her Britannic Majesty's government to hold Mr. Assange in solitary confinement, and to consider his extradition to Sweden.
I've not had much trust in nor respect for Interpol since I learned that Reinhard Heydrich (a.k.a. "The Butcher of Prague") was president of Interpol from 24 August 1940 to 4 June 1942.
I take it back: you did not read "with insufficient care". You can't read.
Please do not speak of things you obviously do not have a clue about.. If you are convicted of rape in Sweden you get to spend 2-10 years in jail, depending on the age of the victim and the amount of violence that was used.
Maybe so, but the link given by A.C. leads to the most informative article about the Assange Affair that I have seen.
I here excerpt my favorite parts:
One of the women said in her statement to police that she was obsessed with meeting the tall, wiry man she had come to see as a hero of free speech — "interesting, brave and admirable."
For two weeks after seeing an Assange TV interview, the 27-year-old woman devoured news reports about him. Then one night, she Googled his name and learned he was giving a lecture in Sweden on Aug. 14.
The woman contacted the organizers and offered to do chores if she were allowed to attend. She turned up in a bright pink sweater and sat in the front row — looking out of place amid a sea of journalists in somber suits. The ice was broken when she agreed to buy a cable for Assange's computer.
I like a woman who knows what she wants; note the carefully orchestrated campaign, the subtlety of execution. She bought him a cable for his computer Surely, that can only spell Geek Love! How could poor Julian resist?
She was invited to a post-lecture dinner, she said, and seated next to Assange. They flirted, she told police: At one point Assange hand-fed her cheese and bread. The police report says she found it "flattering."
Bleah. Disgusting. How can people do that in public? Did he spoon-feed her saccharine also?
She and Assange went to the movies, where she said they kissed. Two days later she brought him home.
But by then, she told police, "the passion and excitement had disappeared."
On the train ride to her place, she said, Assange logged on to his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter. "He paid more attention to the computer than to her," the report said.
Disaster! A clear mismatch, as she was not googling on her own laptop.
They got to her apartment at midnight — and what happened next "felt very dull and boring," she told police. She later alleged, according to a British lawyer, that Assange pinned her down and refused to wear a condom.
The bold type in the last paragraph was added by your humble editor. I think we have here the nub of the matter, so to speak. But of course, we must also consider the woman behind Door Number 2:
The 31-year-old, a feminist scholar who was working for the organization that hosted Assange's Aug. 14 lecture, let him use her apartment while she was away on a trip. But she returned early, on the eve of his lecture, and the two agreed he could stay.
That night, they went out for dinner, returned to her place for tea, and, she said, became intimate. Later, in the middle of the night, she claimed in the police report, Assange sexually molested her. In a London court Tuesday, a lawyer accused Assange of having unprotected sex with the woman while she was asleep.
Afterward, he stayed in the apartment for nearly a week.
Again, bold type provided by yours truly. I can only guess what activities are covered by "became intimate", and the sex-while-asleep bit requires some context and clarification. However, it seems odd that the feminist scholar let him stay in her apartment for a week after an act that she now classifies as "rape".
Ah, but here comes the train-wreck:
During that time, the first woman tried unsuccessfully to reach Assange and, on Aug. 20, tracked down the apartment where he was staying. The two women got to talking.
After swapping Assange stories, they jointly contacted police — and filed rape complaints.
Mr. Assange, you are so doomed.
The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.
The summary implies no such thing. The summary says:
The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."
This is an impartial statement of events. The police report was leaked. Presumably (I must presume, as no one has posted a link to the actual report.), it contains allegations on which the prosecutor's indictment was based. The summary then proceeds to state Mr. Assange's version of events. It endorses neither the police report, nor Mr. Assange's denials.
You read with insufficient care.
I guess that Slashdot, Taco, and letsurock have forgotten that when the women says stop and the man doesn't, it is rape, even here in the U.S.
I don't follow. Are you actually saying that because they make or permit posting on the Assange affair, they are pro-rape?
As for "when the women (sic) says stop"...well, it's not quite that simple, is it? Let's pretend we're all adults here. Some women like to play games of "let's pretend", sometimes it's literally too late to stop, sometimes signals are simply not understood. I agree that, ideally, if either sexual partner wishes to terminate the activities, they should be forthwith terminated (er, the activities, I mean). And in an ideal world, that would always happen.
Legally, such "rapes" are very difficult to prosecute in any country that has a sensible code of laws. If it is clear that the woman willingly began to have sex with someone, and she alleges that she cried "stop" at some point (perhaps because her partner was doing something she didn't like), unless the partner admits that this happened—that he heard, and did not stop—then this will be a case where the only two witnesses to the alleged crime contradict each other. If there is evidence of physical injury, that is indeed another matter.
There is a simple way to avoid these complications: don't go to bed with people you don't know. Take note, Mr. Assange.
Yeah, I've changed my mind on this issue, as is reflected in my reply to Khayman. Quite simply, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is a deception. It implies a degree of personal freedom that is not inherent in the actual policy of the U.S. military.
Things like "gay pride demonstrations" on military bases are exactly what I am afraid of—and I think it's what most people who oppose changing the policy fear.
It would help if the persons who are supporting the change were better communicators. First, they should point out that "don't ask, don't tell" does not imply any degree of tolerance for homosexuals in the military, that it is enough to trigger a discharge if the military finds out even through indirect means that a soldier is homosexual. The policy is not what it appears to be. Second, the proponents of change should be specific about the changes they want. As I stated in another posting, the rules should be the same for everybody. For example, the military could make any public display of affection an offense. It could make public advocacy of sexual matters (homosexual, heterosexual, whatever) out of bounds. I'm pretty sure that political rallies are already forbidden on military bases. I know this will not do away with actual oppression by individuals so inclined—but at least it would remove the official cover for such actions.
I've had homosexual friends and co-workers. Most of them were nice people (well the friends, for sure). However, there was one exception. This guy would wear hot pants (tight short shorts) on cute little suspenders to work (it was an unusually tolerant employer—the official dress policy was "at least wear underclothes"). He never missed an opportunity to demonstrate just how gay he was. His non-work talk invariably centered on sexual matters. Once, a female co-worker and I were having a conference in an office; the door was open. Mr. Hot Pants walked by, stopped, pointed to a tin of tea on the desk in front of us, and said "Hey, are those condoms?". Neither of us knew what to say. I don't think I have to tell you just how much I did not like Mr. Hot Pants. Do you get the picture? That's the kind of thing I don't want in the work place.
This employer was a bit too tolerant, but you did wind up knowing everybody's sexual orientation. My boss was a lesbian with two kids. I don't know where the kids came from, but they were obviously well cared for. She was also absolutely the best boss I ever had. My respect for her is immense. She helped me when I needed help, and stayed out of my way when I was making progress. She lobbied to get me stock options and annual raises in excess of 10% (this was during the boom days, before the big dot.com bust). During a very bad time of my life, a homosexual man saved me from an injustice by telling the truth on the witness stand in court. He volunteered to testify, at considerable risk to his personal safety.
I think our society has to get sane on this topic, and that admonition applies to both sides in the dispute. Like Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along?". Yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen.
Sure, feel free to use our conversation as you see fit. It was good to converse with you, as always. While I have had to seriously revise my views on "don't ask, don't tell", I don't think we see eye to eye on the gay marriage thing...Maybe I will write a short piece on what I think of that issue; writing always helps me to clarify my thoughts (if only because I notice that I'm saying something stupid).
You may be right about the disproportionality of the punishments meted out to homosexual soldiers who discuss their relationships vis a vis heterosexual soldiers who do the same thing. But is it really true that heterosexual offenders always get away with little or no punishment. For example, what if a male heterosexual soldier discusses his sexual exploits in front of a woman soldier after she has made clear that she doesn't want to hear this, and she then lodges an official complaint? I would expect him to be treated quite harshly. I don't know how the Army really handles this kind of case—though I do know that the Army has always had something of a Puritan streak when it comes to sexual matters, and know for a fact that extramarital affairs have often called down severe punishment on the participants (especially if both are in the military). This is actually quite sensible, as such a betrayal undermines the mutual trust that is an absolute requirement for soldiers who may go into battle.
If the facts of the case are indeed as they are presented by the blogger that you linked, then I agree that the woman officer's punishment was outrageous and unjust. However, the link from the blog to the original news article is broken, so I'm left in some doubt about what really happened.
I'm trying to be reasonable about this. Perhaps I'm not as well-informed as I should be. I had thought that "don't ask..." meant that homosexuality is an offense only when a soldier flaunts his sexual nature. But now as I think about it, I wonder why there should be special rules for homosexuals. I think everyone should be bound by the common rules of courtesy and mutual respect. What I'm afraid of is that the gay rights crowd wants to make homosexuals immune from all rules—perhaps permitting flagrant sexual acts in the barracks, and (oh, the horror) pink underwear. OK, maybe I'm being silly, but the activists don't seem to have made their goals clear.
THAT is why nobody has done a broad based attack against PLC gear before. It will blow back on them. Once you realize what a PLC is and how widely it is used, you will also realize that an attack against this platform is the equivalent of a nuclear attack in the software world. In the case of a PC you only lose data. Most data can be restored. In this case, you lose an industrial process and it may be significantly damaged. An attack will almost certainly blow back on you and your neighbors. It will make the economic malaise of the present look tame by comparison.
Might there be people who don't care about "blowback"? People who now know that it's possible to write this kind of virus (one that targets PLCs), and who will gladly set a modified version of Stuxnet free to work its destructive "magic"? It's true that few states would want to do this—at least those that have a significant computer-PLC based infrastructure...but then there's always those "non-state actors". How to get viruses to propagate is well-known these days. All that would be needed is enough knowledge to broaden the spectrum of PLCs that will be manipulated by the payload of the Stuxnet descendants, and a person so inclined could generate a world-wide catastrophe. Heck, a group of 15 year old kids could probably do it.
I think that Stuxnet was probably created at the behest of a state—the U.S. and Israel seem likely suspects. However, these creative people have made a terrible mistake: when the wrong people create a Stuxnet variant...well that is the definition of "blowback".
...Comparing Don't ask Don't tell to the government sanctioned wholesale murder and persecution of gays is ridiculous. One limits their ability to serve openly in the military, the other makes it impossible for them to exist openly at all. The punishment for one is a discharge from the military, the other is death. The reality is Don't ask Don't tell would be gone already if it weren't for the fact that Congress still has a lot of old white men who are from a time when Blacks couldn't sit at the same lunch counter as them, as they die off the ridiculous policies that exist to placate their homophobia will be gone too.
I am having trouble understanding your viewpoint; perhaps you could help clarify things for me? I suppose it's true that I'm somewhat old. I studied at Berkeley from 1966-1970, and participated in lots of demonstrations—including those in support of the Black Panther Party, the Free Huey Newton campaign, and the Third World Liberation Front. Yet, I must have more in common now with those benighted bigots I fought against than you of the (presumably) younger generation—I don't see what's wrong with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I understand this policy to mean that mere evidence of homosexual inclinations or private behavior is not an offense as far as the U.S. Army is concerned. It becomes an issue only if individual soldiers choose to make an issue out of their sexual desires and practices. What's wrong with that? I think nobody should bring their sex life to work, and throw it in the faces of their fellow workers (or soldiers, in this case). I think it's odious to discuss one's sexual exploits at work, no matter what one's preferences are. What is the alternative to "don't ask, don't tell"? I can only assume it must be "Do ask, do tell". In other words, let's make a big deal out of everyone's sex lives. And I think that's repulsive. I don't want to hear about Corporal Jones having an affair with the Captain's wife, and I don't want to hear that Privates Bob and Bruce are getting it on. Please be careful to note what I'm saying: I am not offended by these things, I am offended when the participants insist on telling me about it.
However, that seems to be exactly what the opponents of the current policy want: homosexuals in the military should be free to tell everyone how wonderful being homosexual is, and what they like to do to each other, and so forth. (If I'm misunderstanding the goal of this movement, please do correct me.) I don't see why they should be allowed to conduct themselves in a way that I would find unacceptable for heterosexuals. You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time—but sometimes I think that today's homosexuals believe they just now invented it. Well, it's not that big a deal.
And yet 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.
I'm not sure how to understand this claim. What does it mean to "own n% of the wealth"? What is "wealth"? Do the rich have money lying around their villas in huge bulging bags? Do they earn 95% of all the salaries in the US? Do they have 95% of all money in the banks? Do they own 95% of all the real estate? Or maybe you are thinking about "paper" in the form of stocks, bonds, and IOUs? As it stands, your claim is meaningless. Yes, of course the rich are wealthy. That's called a "tautology". I think your statement really comes to saying, "being rich is evil".
It gets even more lopsided if you consider the top 1% of population, would would be considered rich by anyone's imagination, pay 39% of all income taxes.
Hmm. I suspect that your reasoning is something like this: "Because the rich own 95% of everything, they should...what? Pay 95% of all the taxes? But you don't say what the wealthiest 5% of the population pay in terms of income taxes...you just claim that the top 1% pay 39% of the income taxes. It seems reasonable that if you were to include the other 4%, it would add up to a nice chunk of money. Why don't you tell us how much the top 5% pay? I'm smelling funky statistics and cheap rhetoric here.
Disclaimer: I am not rich. I would like to be rich, but can't be bothered to wear a tie and do the bullshit you have to do to get rich. I am pissed as hell at the financial elite—the "best and brightest" who have just brought the world to the brink of economic collapse, and at the government whose "regulatory" agencies were either asleep at the wheel or actively collaborating. But that is only a small subset of the rich and powerful; mere wealth is not evil—stealing is evil.
Your last two paragraphs appear to be complete blather. "Hardware-accelerated social simulation circuits": zero meaning.
I'm sorry, but this made perfect sense to me. Maybe YOU are not allowing your brain to work with physical abstractions as if they were living entities, but some of us do, and it's a quite effective modeling tool, as the GP was trying to demonstrate.
With regard to the first sentence, I'm happy you feel that you understood something. As for the remainder of what I quoted, it makes no more sense than that which you claim to have understood.