You know, we had this same discussion when the XBox 360 first appeared. Then they added cheaper games, the Arcade series, back when everyone was complaining about 'who wants to play 60 dollar titles?'. And then over time, more and more games became backwards compatible, and you know what? They turned out to be boring - like watching SD 4:3 programs in an HD 16:9 world.
Then a couple years ago, critics were bemoaning the end of the video game industry. Wall Street just couldn't figure out the economics, and they were saying that there's nothing new under the sun, and that if gaming didn't go 3D there would be no future.
The fact of the matter is that game developers and studios keep improving and they have yet to plateau. The industry *is* moving forward and it *is* getting better. Unlike, say, smartphones.
That would be called a 'book'. You can buy them for fifty cents on the streets of New York. OTOH, we kinda like DRM-infested garbage for what it is. Not a book. So we don't judge them by the same standards. Perhaps if you read more books you could relieve yourself of the pressure you feel about the fun that is DRM-infested garbage on consoles.
The smartest real customers are game developers, and all of them have already bought into the console. The only mindless cretins who blindly accept the corporate overlords are the game developers who sign exclusive deals and don't go multiplatform. Then again, they have dollariffic reasons for doing so which are not hate-based, like your Soviet screed.
Red herring. You know what kills me is that this is exactly the kind of mindless thrash that hated on AT&T + Apple when they got the idea that they *wouldn't* have always on internet.
Gaming as an afterthought? Did you not see the head of COD, the most profitable game in existence, tell you that they rewrote their engine for this next generation console?
The statute of limitations on sport should be the season. If you cannot determine by the end of the season who is the legitimate champion of the season, then don't give an award. If you cannot determine, by the end of a game, if all the rules of the game were followed, then declare the competition null and void. You cannot have a referee that has infinite time to make a judgment, this is the very opposite of what qualifies a competent judge.
I am convinced that Armstrong is being unfairly persecuted, and furthermore that every sport that has doping rules should ensure that they are immediately enforceable. If Armstrong or anyone else outsmarted the USADA, then too bad. My bias is that this agency is doing to its sport what boxing governing bodies did to theirs which is to draw into profound relief its inability to hold the respect and admiration of its chartered participants. Any certification that is not consistently and immediately verifiable loses its credibility.
My guess is that there is some squirrelly language in the contract that allows what is essentially no statute of limitations on allegations and does other stuff that wouldn't stand in a court of law.
The value of everything on YouTube has just been established by Google. Before that it was worthless. Additionally, the liability of everything on GooTube depends on the willingness and ability for 'rightsholders' to sue successfully.
There is no intrinsic value for uploaded video content, no matter what's in it. The value accues based on the advertising revenue generated by hits to the site. Google will instantly know this accrued value the moment they recieve a desist order or a claim for damages. They can then instantly drop the content or fight for it. Either way, Google's publication of the content establishes the value. If Google decides to drop it, the revenue stream is immediately lost.
BTW, lawyers searching for content marginally adds to the hit value of GooTube content. They have already mastered click fraud enough to discount artificial pumping up of the value. So basically attorneys will be guessing at value (or speaking of the value of other negotiated deals), but Google will know the residual and accrual values.
Now consider all of that and think about the complexity of the release problem within a music video where somebody is playing a song, drinking a Pepsi, wearing Nike shoes and the lyrics mention Madonna. Negotiated value vs web hit value. Who has the advantage? Google.
As one who is not particularly up to date on these matters, I wonder why so much development must occur? It sounds like Bill Gates argument for bundling IE with Windows: If we don't add more features to the core operating system, we'll die.
But hey, I still use ksh and vi, so what do I know?
Halo2 is popular for several reasons, and I say this as an XBox gamer who has been on XBox Live since the beginning. This is important to know because I've been in hundreds of chats online with gamers who are veterans of Counterstrike and plenty of gamers who play multiple platforms.
1. Halo2 has got some of the largest environments of any FPS, and they are very intricate and well balanced for online play.
2. Spawn killing is practically impossible.
3. There are huge numbers of modes of play, all of which are customizeable.
4. Most of the gamers are more mature, not all, but on average it's a more thoughtful strategic kind of online game than something like Unreal, but not as tediously strategic as Full Spectrum Warrior.
5. It forces you to chose weapons carefully. You can't carry around more than three at any one time.
But what I would say is the bottom line is that it sells. This is the game that has held its own against everything else on the platform: Ghost Recon, DeusEx, 007, XIII, Rainbow Six, Counterstrike, Medal of Honor, StarWars Battlefront...
Halo2 can't be the subjectively best game of all time because not all gamers play on the same platforms. But it is the biggest unit seller for the XBox, bigger than any other. That ain't hay.
But for gamers who play PC, XBox, GC & PS2, it still gets lots of respect. That's saying plenty.
The XBox controller is the most advanced gaming controller ever made. I'm talking about the first one, not the japanese style controller two. The 'Duke' controller was made for adults, people with big hands.
For those of us who actually work with keyboards, the idea of sitting and gaming with sections of them is kinda, well.. so 1988. A-10 Warthog Flight Sim anyone? I can understand the new USB joysticks and special gaming keyboards, but to take a controller port and map it to QWERTY - it's positively retro.
You're never going to get the vibration into the keyboard, and for those of us who have mastered the finer points of Halo 2, like knowing how many needles we can take before exploding in a hail of purple rain, we're going to own you like a pocketful of nickels.
As for Half-Life 2. I've thought about it, but I'm looking for the USB adapter that lets me plug my XBox controller into the PC.
My XBox controller has 10 buttons, two joysticks, a directional pad and two triggers. Let's see a Mac handle that.
Going Private is as big as Going Public
on
The Naked Corporation
·
· Score: 4, Informative
When the kitchen gets too hot, major shareholders can just go private. All that's done, doesn't show up in the Fortune 500. A public corporation's dealings, especially one of any size, are so complex that there is a lot of nuance that you can never get.
As on who sat in on analyst calls in a public company, and tracked the stock price, I know there is huge gap between an understanding of the public, the market, company insiders and company employees. Due diligence is no joke, and communicating what's going on in a company is an extraordinarily difficult matter. Just publishing stuff on the web doesn't cut it. If so, nobody would have lost money in the Bubble. Raise your hand if you really know how to daytrade or read a 10Q.
Private equity firms are on the rise. Everything is not for public consumption. Given what happens to people roasted in the media, what would you rather do? Be public and open to false ridicule, or concentrate on your business?
There are actually some of us out here who aren't interested in Blink 182. What Napster never did was offer premium services, nor even something as simple as the kind of profiling of peers we have grown accustomed to in other peer networks like icq and y! messenger.
If you want Miles Davis, chances are you were not going to find good tracks on Napster.
Sopmebody should conceive of a public market for music catalogs, because what we *still* don't know is what music exists out there which might be up for bids.
Napster still never reached eBay status. These are some of the reasons why - concentration on college demographic musci instead of all music.
Bodewash. You are creating a strawman based on your stereotypes of windows users. There plenty of very good reasons people use Windows, not the least of which is because it's possible to get BORED with linux.
lindows, if it works, will be wonderful, a nice alternative to vmware which is also extra cool. no matter what lindows does, it will not fulfill adolescent fantasies of overthrowing microsoft's desktop domination. even ashcroft's doj can't do that.
stop getting exercised about the presence of windows. it persists, and it is not a Bad Thing.
it's not a problem if it is managed well. people will decide what they want to pay attention to and how much effort they will spend. what opening the system onto the internet solves is simple, the distance and time between the people and the deliberative process.
americans will have no end of energy to spend following their political interests online, and there is no limit to the amount of complexity an online forum can present.
remember two years ago when it was assumed most americans wouldn't use search engines, but aol instead? do you honestly believe that if americans could vote themselves a tax break online that they would say 'oh it's too complex'. don't bet against it.
I've not commented until now, but let me begin giving a little background. I was the student rep for the Engineering department to the student senate back in my college days, so I know a lot about why politics and the people never meet. The reason is quite simple, which is that the complexities of decision-making that are done in deliberative bodies simply does not abstract well. The best analog I can give is that just as with open source, if you can't read the code directly, you are always going to be at a loss when you depend on someone else to bundle the functions.
In this society, we live with the paradox that we believe that every individual should be capable of making the decisions that affect their lives, yet people get lazy and allow others to do that for them. We all depend on the press rather than to read the congressional record. We generally would rather watch CNN than CSPAN. We want abstraction and direct participation at the same time. At some point when we decide that the system is broken, we desire direct participation. The ballot initiative process in California is an example of small interest groups crafting their own legislative vebriage instead of relying on politicians to do so in the state legislature. Term limits are another expression of the peoples desire to get fresh bodies into the process of decisionmaking.
But what does a professional politician do that is so complex? Nothing really, except that there are a plethora of very complicated procedures involved in the deliberative process. We recognize this in formal systems such as Robert's Rules of Order. This is where the 'right honorable gentleman may be recognized' and 'i yeild the floor if...' and a half million other rote phrases come from. (usually followed by the pounding of a gavel). A great deal of this formality is critical in establishing a consistent framework for deciding weighty and complex matters. But equally, it obfuscates processes and allows people to evade responsibility and accountability. The entire great problem is that by limiting the number of direct participants in this deliberative process, you effectively limit the number of braincells dedicated to the task of decisionmaking. Most importantly you introduce the necessity of abstraction, the process through which dissonance and manipulation results inevitably in misrepresentation of facts, and all that jazz we have come to know as 'spin'.
So what if all the web based conferences collaborated on a common core which allowed karma collection, cross-posting, and voting? What if we build software to track reputations? What if you couldn't vote on any matter of substance until you demonstrated competence on all the core issues? What if, though you might want to vote based on abstractions of issues, all of the relevent facts and testimony were immediately at your fingertips. What if the daunting complexity and arcane formalities of all our legislative processes were embodied into a web interface, manifestly open for all eyes and ears?
I call this area computer mediated deliberation. At bottom it is a system designed to facilitate decision making between individuals and groups through document management, voting systems, chat, conferencing and other forms of webified communication.
The fundamental premise of such a system is that it is capable of disintermediating legislative bodies and opening up processes which now occur at times and locations too obscure for citizen review. Duties like grand jury service, city council audience or even second guessing the OJ trial are things for which Americans show a deep and continuing interest. Why don't we take these processes out from under big brick and mortar domed buildings and put them into the sunlight of the net for all to see and participate?
It opens and reinforces democratic processes. And instead of pointing fingers at 'the Beltway', we can be there. 24/7.
I have begun putting together ideas for a system which is quite involved, yet builds on things we all recognize in conferencing systems such as this one, motet, caucus and webcrossing. As soon as I get my own domain hosted etc. I will attempt to start an open source project.
it's relatively simple to kill sealand. what can't be killed is a distributed federation of sealands. what is required for this stuff to work is for citizens of other countries to become citizens of sealand and operate mirror sites as 'embassies' of sealand. the more heads the hydra has...
on the other hand, i'm not particularly impressed by sealand's declaration of sovereignty. what if the u.s. decides to call it a rogue nation? it wouldn't take much, in terms of precedence, to turn u.s. sentiment against it and shut it down with a weekend military intervention.
big software companies are not the enemy, and open source is not the cure. open source would only be helpful in this regard if some organization, like TrustE had source review privileges, that ordinary consumers could recognize. (and you can imagine what a nightmare creating such a body would be for anyone but open source companies) the bottom line is that you would have to trust some organization or proxy other than your two eyes. and the people who are most likely to be vicitimized by software scallywags are not programmers, nor are they likely to know an open source TrustE review board from clipper initiatives.
smart folks who download junk software ought to know better, especially software from no-name, no-reputation companies. the rest of us have to trust *somebody*. smaller does not mean safer.
btw. if these comet guys were publicly held, where do you think the stock price would be today? somewhere between the toilet and the sewer. it's the dinky little companies with no assets to lose who are most likely to be unscrupulous.
According to what I've read about Gulf War rules of engagement, flying below radar is essentially suicidal. Any pocket rocket can take out low-flying aircraft. To get above that American attack aircraft fly nowadays in pods of 4 at 15-20,000 feet using ECM to convince ground-based SAMs that they are one aircraft or multiple pods.
'Wild Weasels' are A4 pilots on anti-SAM duty. They draw SAM radar and fire AMRAMs to blow them up. This scares the bejeesus out of SAM operators who will then only illuminate targets for a quick moment.
The scary thing about this technology is not that it can be used against stealth aircraft, but that it doesn't transmit, and therefore cannot be countered by Wild Weasel tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
You could run Crysis 3 on the intergalactic Borg network, it would still be a shitty game.
You know, we had this same discussion when the XBox 360 first appeared. Then they added cheaper games, the Arcade series, back when everyone was complaining about 'who wants to play 60 dollar titles?'. And then over time, more and more games became backwards compatible, and you know what? They turned out to be boring - like watching SD 4:3 programs in an HD 16:9 world.
Then a couple years ago, critics were bemoaning the end of the video game industry. Wall Street just couldn't figure out the economics, and they were saying that there's nothing new under the sun, and that if gaming didn't go 3D there would be no future.
The fact of the matter is that game developers and studios keep improving and they have yet to plateau. The industry *is* moving forward and it *is* getting better. Unlike, say, smartphones.
That would be called a 'book'. You can buy them for fifty cents on the streets of New York. OTOH, we kinda like DRM-infested garbage for what it is. Not a book. So we don't judge them by the same standards. Perhaps if you read more books you could relieve yourself of the pressure you feel about the fun that is DRM-infested garbage on consoles.
That would be called Marketing. You know, that subject in which you took no classes whatsoever.
The smartest real customers are game developers, and all of them have already bought into the console. The only mindless cretins who blindly accept the corporate overlords are the game developers who sign exclusive deals and don't go multiplatform. Then again, they have dollariffic reasons for doing so which are not hate-based, like your Soviet screed.
Red herring. You know what kills me is that this is exactly the kind of mindless thrash that hated on AT&T + Apple when they got the idea that they *wouldn't* have always on internet.
Gaming as an afterthought? Did you not see the head of COD, the most profitable game in existence, tell you that they rewrote their engine for this next generation console?
I see that your dumbass hasn't solved this problem yet.
The statute of limitations on sport should be the season. If you cannot determine by the end of the season who is the legitimate champion of the season, then don't give an award. If you cannot determine, by the end of a game, if all the rules of the game were followed, then declare the competition null and void. You cannot have a referee that has infinite time to make a judgment, this is the very opposite of what qualifies a competent judge.
I am convinced that Armstrong is being unfairly persecuted, and furthermore that every sport that has doping rules should ensure that they are immediately enforceable. If Armstrong or anyone else outsmarted the USADA, then too bad. My bias is that this agency is doing to its sport what boxing governing bodies did to theirs which is to draw into profound relief its inability to hold the respect and admiration of its chartered participants. Any certification that is not consistently and immediately verifiable loses its credibility.
My guess is that there is some squirrelly language in the contract that allows what is essentially no statute of limitations on allegations and does other stuff that wouldn't stand in a court of law.
The value of everything on YouTube has just been established by Google. Before that it was worthless. Additionally, the liability of everything on GooTube depends on the willingness and ability for 'rightsholders' to sue successfully.
There is no intrinsic value for uploaded video content, no matter what's in it. The value accues based on the advertising revenue generated by hits to the site. Google will instantly know this accrued value the moment they recieve a desist order or a claim for damages. They can then instantly drop the content or fight for it. Either way, Google's publication of the content establishes the value. If Google decides to drop it, the revenue stream is immediately lost.
BTW, lawyers searching for content marginally adds to the hit value of GooTube content. They have already mastered click fraud enough to discount artificial pumping up of the value. So basically attorneys will be guessing at value (or speaking of the value of other negotiated deals), but Google will know the residual and accrual values.
Now consider all of that and think about the complexity of the release problem within a music video where somebody is playing a song, drinking a Pepsi, wearing Nike shoes and the lyrics mention Madonna. Negotiated value vs web hit value. Who has the advantage? Google.
As one who is not particularly up to date on these matters, I wonder why so much development must occur? It sounds like Bill Gates argument for bundling IE with Windows: If we don't add more features to the core operating system, we'll die.
But hey, I still use ksh and vi, so what do I know?
Halo2 is popular for several reasons, and I say this as an XBox gamer who has been on XBox Live since the beginning. This is important to know because I've been in hundreds of chats online with gamers who are veterans of Counterstrike and plenty of gamers who play multiple platforms.
1. Halo2 has got some of the largest environments of any FPS, and they are very intricate and well balanced for online play.
2. Spawn killing is practically impossible.
3. There are huge numbers of modes of play, all of which are customizeable.
4. Most of the gamers are more mature, not all, but on average it's a more thoughtful strategic kind of online game than something like Unreal, but not as tediously strategic as Full Spectrum Warrior.
5. It forces you to chose weapons carefully. You can't carry around more than three at any one time.
But what I would say is the bottom line is that it sells. This is the game that has held its own against everything else on the platform: Ghost Recon, DeusEx, 007, XIII, Rainbow Six, Counterstrike, Medal of Honor, StarWars Battlefront...
Halo2 can't be the subjectively best game of all time because not all gamers play on the same platforms. But it is the biggest unit seller for the XBox, bigger than any other. That ain't hay.
But for gamers who play PC, XBox, GC & PS2, it still gets lots of respect. That's saying plenty.
Halo2 has radar. It doesn't need a peek feature.
The XBox controller is the most advanced gaming controller ever made. I'm talking about the first one, not the japanese style controller two. The 'Duke' controller was made for adults, people with big hands.
For those of us who actually work with keyboards, the idea of sitting and gaming with sections of them is kinda, well.. so 1988. A-10 Warthog Flight Sim anyone? I can understand the new USB joysticks and special gaming keyboards, but to take a controller port and map it to QWERTY - it's positively retro.
You're never going to get the vibration into the keyboard, and for those of us who have mastered the finer points of Halo 2, like knowing how many needles we can take before exploding in a hail of purple rain, we're going to own you like a pocketful of nickels.
As for Half-Life 2. I've thought about it, but I'm looking for the USB adapter that lets me plug my XBox controller into the PC.
My Knuth is right between my Hawking and my Wolfram.
My XBox controller has 10 buttons, two joysticks, a directional pad and two triggers. Let's see a Mac handle that.
When the kitchen gets too hot, major shareholders can just go private. All that's done, doesn't show up in the Fortune 500. A public corporation's dealings, especially one of any size, are so complex that there is a lot of nuance that you can never get .
As on who sat in on analyst calls in a public company, and tracked the stock price, I know there is huge gap between an understanding of the public, the market, company insiders and company employees. Due diligence is no joke, and communicating what's going on in a company is an extraordinarily difficult matter. Just publishing stuff on the web doesn't cut it. If so, nobody would have lost money in the Bubble. Raise your hand if you really know how to daytrade or read a 10Q.
Private equity firms are on the rise. Everything is not for public consumption. Given what happens to people roasted in the media, what would you rather do? Be public and open to false ridicule, or concentrate on your business?
Dont Tread On Me. Freedom First.
There are actually some of us out here who aren't interested in Blink 182. What Napster never did was offer premium services, nor even something as simple as the kind of profiling of peers we have grown accustomed to in other peer networks like icq and y! messenger.
If you want Miles Davis, chances are you were not going to find good tracks on Napster.
Sopmebody should conceive of a public market for music catalogs, because what we *still* don't know is what music exists out there which might be up for bids.
Napster still never reached eBay status. These are some of the reasons why - concentration on college demographic musci instead of all music.
Bodewash. You are creating a strawman based on your stereotypes of windows users. There plenty of very good reasons people use Windows, not the least of which is because it's possible to get BORED with linux.
lindows, if it works, will be wonderful, a nice alternative to vmware which is also extra cool. no matter what lindows does, it will not fulfill adolescent fantasies of overthrowing microsoft's desktop domination. even ashcroft's doj can't do that.
stop getting exercised about the presence of windows. it persists, and it is not a Bad Thing.
(original xeroid - been there done that in 1.7MB)
it's not a problem if it is managed well. people will decide what they want to pay attention to and how much effort they will spend. what opening the system onto the internet solves is simple, the distance and time between the people and the deliberative process.
americans will have no end of energy to spend following their political interests online, and there is no limit to the amount of complexity an online forum can present.
remember two years ago when it was assumed most americans wouldn't use search engines, but aol instead? do you honestly believe that if americans could vote themselves a tax break online that they would say 'oh it's too complex'. don't bet against it.
I've not commented until now, but let me begin giving a little background. I was the student rep for the Engineering department to the student senate back in my college days, so I know a lot about why politics and the people never meet. The reason is quite simple, which is that the complexities of decision-making that are done in deliberative bodies simply does not abstract well. The best analog I can give is that just as with open source, if you can't read the code directly, you are always going to be at a loss when you depend on someone else to bundle the functions.
In this society, we live with the paradox that we believe that every individual should be capable of making the decisions that affect their lives, yet people get lazy and allow others to do that for them. We all depend on the press rather than to read the congressional record. We generally would rather watch CNN than CSPAN. We want abstraction and direct participation at the same time. At some point when we decide that the system is broken, we desire direct participation. The ballot initiative process in California is an example of small interest groups crafting their own legislative vebriage instead of relying on politicians to do so in the state legislature. Term limits are another expression of the peoples desire to get fresh bodies into the process of decisionmaking.
But what does a professional politician do that is so complex? Nothing really, except that there are a plethora of very complicated procedures involved in the deliberative process. We recognize this in formal systems such as Robert's Rules of Order. This is where the 'right honorable gentleman may be recognized' and 'i yeild the floor if...' and a half million other rote phrases come from. (usually followed by the pounding of a gavel). A great deal of this formality is critical in establishing a consistent framework for deciding weighty and complex matters. But equally, it obfuscates processes and allows people to evade responsibility and accountability. The entire great problem is that by limiting the number of direct participants in this deliberative process, you effectively limit the number of braincells dedicated to the task of decisionmaking. Most importantly you introduce the necessity of abstraction, the process through which dissonance and manipulation results inevitably in misrepresentation of facts, and all that jazz we have come to know as 'spin'.
So what if all the web based conferences collaborated on a common core which allowed karma collection, cross-posting, and voting? What if we build software to track reputations? What if you couldn't vote on any matter of substance until you demonstrated competence on all the core issues? What if, though you might want to vote based on abstractions of issues, all of the relevent facts and testimony were immediately at your fingertips. What if the daunting complexity and arcane formalities of all our legislative processes were embodied into a web interface, manifestly open for all eyes and ears?
I call this area computer mediated deliberation. At bottom it is a system designed to facilitate decision making between individuals and groups through document management, voting systems, chat, conferencing and other forms of webified communication.
The fundamental premise of such a system is that it is capable of disintermediating legislative bodies and opening up processes which now occur at times and locations too obscure for citizen review. Duties like grand jury service, city council audience or even second guessing the OJ trial are things for which Americans show a deep and continuing interest. Why don't we take these processes out from under big brick and mortar domed buildings and put them into the sunlight of the net for all to see and participate?
It opens and reinforces democratic processes. And instead of pointing fingers at 'the Beltway', we can be there. 24/7.
I have begun putting together ideas for a system which is quite involved, yet builds on things we all recognize in conferencing systems such as this one, motet, caucus and webcrossing. As soon as I get my own domain hosted etc. I will attempt to start an open source project.
it's relatively simple to kill sealand. what can't be killed is a distributed federation of sealands. what is required for this stuff to work is for citizens of other countries to become citizens of sealand and operate mirror sites as 'embassies' of sealand. the more heads the hydra has...
on the other hand, i'm not particularly impressed by sealand's declaration of sovereignty. what if the u.s. decides to call it a rogue nation? it wouldn't take much, in terms of precedence, to turn u.s. sentiment against it and shut it down with a weekend military intervention.
puhlease!
big software companies are not the enemy, and open source is not the cure. open source would only be helpful in this regard if some organization, like TrustE had source review privileges, that ordinary consumers could recognize. (and you can imagine what a nightmare creating such a body would be for anyone but open source companies) the bottom line is that you would have to trust some organization or proxy other than your two eyes. and the people who are most likely to be vicitimized by software scallywags are not programmers, nor are they likely to know an open source TrustE review board from clipper initiatives.
smart folks who download junk software ought to know better, especially software from no-name, no-reputation companies. the rest of us have to trust *somebody*. smaller does not mean safer.
btw. if these comet guys were publicly held, where do you think the stock price would be today? somewhere between the toilet and the sewer. it's the dinky little companies with no assets to lose who are most likely to be unscrupulous.
According to what I've read about Gulf War rules of engagement, flying below radar is essentially suicidal. Any pocket rocket can take out low-flying aircraft. To get above that American attack aircraft fly nowadays in pods of 4 at 15-20,000 feet using ECM to convince ground-based SAMs that they are one aircraft or multiple pods.
'Wild Weasels' are A4 pilots on anti-SAM duty. They draw SAM radar and fire AMRAMs to blow them up. This scares the bejeesus out of SAM operators who will then only illuminate targets for a quick moment.
The scary thing about this technology is not that it can be used against stealth aircraft, but that it doesn't transmit, and therefore cannot be countered by Wild Weasel tactics.