Actually makes perfect sense. If a topic has stopped growing, by definition, its no longer trendy. Furthermore, that likely means its either petered out or reached critical mass. Either way, trending via twitter no longer matters as its a dead topic or everyone already knows to following.
Large scale conspiracies and secrets can be held for fairly lengthy durations. Decades even, when the information is worth keeping secret. Look at projects like the F-117. Likewise, there are some aviation projects which have been ongoing for decades and all we know is, to paraphrase, by even today's standards, they seem pure science fiction.
Conspiracies happen all the time. But, contrary to common misconception, they need not be nefarious. Some times they are a birthday party. Other times, they save lives and no one ever knows; or at least not for many decades.
But, as you rightly point out, there are costs associated with conspiracies. IMOHO, you left out one variable. What is the benefit of a conspiracy in comparison to maintaining it. By that measure alone, the conspiracy cries here are just dumb. Spending political capital on issues which largely don't matter to the public would be as dumb as believing there is a conspiracy here.
Who knows, there may be a conspiracy at work here. But at the end of the day, there is absolutely zero reason to believe there is a conspiracy which means, for now, we're operating in the realm of the truly paranoid.
And if you bother to read the comments posted to the link you provided, not to mention twitter's own response, you'll easily see the only story here is that people are delusional in falsely believing that twitter is censoring anything. Its a fact which google's statistics as well as the sites which the linked article even validate.
So really the only story here is that people are going out of their way to create a story about the fact there isn't a story to be created. So in short of that, the new story is one of conspiracy which never existed in the first place while trying to hide the fact there never was a story.
Posts like yours are somewhat frustrating because it fuels other paranoid people into believing that conspiracy is everywhere, when in fact, its nothing but self delusion fueled by others of a like-minded delusion. Much like moon landing conspiracies, there is absolutely no reason to give them anything other than a cursory glance.
You're suggesting that Google and Twitter are part of a massive conspiracy to hide a leak of material which largely, everyone who reads, already knows. Obviously, there are some exceptions, but those exceptions largely only serve to fill in detail and cause governmental chaos. Furthermore, you are suggesting that twitter is purposely censoring while Google is not only censoring but reformulating statistical modules to not only up hold the conspiracy, but but to ensure the results match that of twitter.
Which is more likely? People are just not that interested in reading about fairly well known information, which they are already not interested in reading day to day? Or that there is some massive conspiracy involving all of the world's governments and companies, both large and small?
Exactly. If these feelings persist in other facets of your life, medication might be worth reviewing with your doctors.
I said nothing of the like. Your position seems to be that diplomatic channels should not exist.
Free speech is not the same thing as violation of privacy. If it were your privacy, you should as heck wouldn't be complaining about everyone's right to free speech.
To be clear, if they own the works, their use is non-infringing. They are absolutely free to do so. Directly receiving a song in this method would be completely legal.
All this really means is that if you directly received a song via this method of distribution and you are sued for infringement of that specific song, you're legally off because it was legally given to you. After all, I'm pretty sure it would otherwise be considered entrapment.
Knowing foreign policy is not the same thing as being in the same room. In fact, what you suggest is very likely to damage foreign policy efforts.
If diplomats and ambassadors can't have frank discussions then lines of communication have been destroyed. Failure to effectively communicate is the first step toward total chaos.
You make is sound like the public is always left entirely in the dark. When in fact, this latest round of leaks absolutely confirms that the public has always been well informed as to the state of foreign policy.
If you've been the least bit surprised by the majority of the leaks then you've simply maintained your own veil of secrecy despite the media doing their best to lift it.
These types of disclosure only serve to create chaos and harm relationships.
Basically, leaking the bank documents are far, far, far more important than the harmful bullshit pushed so far.
I would disagree with that. Certainly, quite a lot of people would lose jobs if copyright were to be dropped altogether. However, it wouldn't come to the level of economic collapse. We've had a working capitalist economy without copyright, or without its stringent enforcement, in the past.
I believe you dramatically under estimate the effect IP has on modern economies. Take a look around. Almost everything you see and use on a daily basis is generation income for someone because of IP laws. Without those laws, and associated protections, there is little incentive to create almost anything you've used today.
Always enjoy our exchanges. Its almost like 'ol times on slashdot. Even though to some degree we disagree, its nice to have an exchange with someone who actually knows what they are talking about and therefore has a legitimate view; at least from our armchairs.;)
So what's the rational for 10-20 years versus say 50-100 years? To me, even ten years seems, far, far too little for software. And many books are enjoyed for generations. As such, fifty years seems like a drop in the bucket.
Think about that. Even ten years ago, Oracle was still a pretty damn good database. Which means they would now be forced to compete with themselves. In that type of market, I can't image being able to purchase an Oracle license for anything less than at least an order of magnitude more than what they currently cost - at least.... Which means, IMOHO, its not really a viable cost model.
Many copyrighted works require staggering investments these days. Its not like the old days where your investment was paper and typesetting. As such, it seems more than reasonable to allow for broad copyright retainment terms so as to allow the creators their best chance possible at not only reaping their benefits, but growing a business out of it.
And that's what seems to elude so many. A successful company built with copyrights is typically very good for society as a whole. A healthy society is one with employment. Healthy companies create employment.
Heck, its fairly easy to argue that a huge chunk of the middle class exists either directly or indirectly because of existing copyright laws. Basically, pirating is attempting to gut both the middle and upper economic segments of our economy; which covers small to large business entities.
I made the distinction because far too many pirates believe copyright is only an issue for massive corporations and it has no relevance elsewhere. I was attempting to correct that rampant misconception. Copyright affects everyone for the better.
If you mean that in a sense of a fixed-term N years copyright, which does not terminate with end of author's life (if he lives less than N years after the date of creation), then that makes sense.
I didn't really say fixed. I meant life + x. But I am not necessarily against alternate approaches, so long as creators are reasonably protected.
For how long?
I never said nor do I believe I have an informed answer. IMOHO, I don't feel the current time limits are necessarily bad. At the same time, if you make them too short, I can see where the system can be gamed such that creators ultimately lose out on the front end.
Well, seeing as "you" are the author and "you" are dead, then yes I agree the author should get nothing. You're advocating paying a corpse?
No, I'm advocating paying him or his heirs the monies which are due them. To be against this means you are against death insurance and even inheritance. So when you die, you spouse should receive none of your stuff.
For whatever reason, people don't seem to have a clue about this stuff. Most IP works off of the notion of royalties. Those royalties are frequently made in exchange for less monies up front. To be against copyright means you are willing to pay $1,000 or more for a single book and likewise for songs. Or, you can be even a slight bit reasonable and realize that they agreed to accept less for slow, lower payouts over the life of their copyright.
I love how free-marketers want the government to stay out of their business when it comes to regulation, but demand the government protect their income.
You have no clue what you're saying. Government exists to regulate markets. There has been and never will be unregulated capitalism. You're position is basically saying, we shouldn't have police and if others wish to take your property, they should be allowed to do so - assuming they can get past you. Basically your argument is garbage.
I just don't think it's right to sacrifice freedom for the sake of greedy corporate regimes
This is yet more stupidity put forth by ignorant pirates who have no idea what they are talking about. Copyrights laws protect TONS of people. TONS of small and medium sized business DIRECTLY benefit from copyright protections. Copyright laws provide massive jobs and create massive wealth all over the world. A good chunk of the money has absolutely nothing to do with "greedy corporate regimes."
Basically you're arguing that despite you have no idea what you're talking about, capitalism is bad and that you are a socialist. If you accept a paycheck, despite your ignorant ranting, are a hypocrite.
Why is that pirates always put statements in other's mouths and then argue the counterpoint to make their point. When you have to do that, its a really strong indicator you have no legitimate point to stand on.
What I implied was, there is nothing wrong with copyright extending beyond an author's death. And I certainly don't have a problem with it covering the length of one's life.
Let's say you write a book. The book goes to a publisher and is accepted. You die. The author and the family should receive nothing? There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about allowing a family to benefit from another family member's labors. Lord of the Rings is a great example.
A pricing structure that typically (in the UK anyhow) charges about 10-20% more** for lossy digital album downloads than it does for lossless physical CDs (with free delivery) has certainly got something seriously wrong with it.
Which absolutely means you are anti-capitalism. Period. End of discussion. Since you likely receive a paycheck because of capitalism, you're a hypocrite. If you make anything above minimum wage, I'll happily accept the difference so as to rid you of your hypocrisy.
The market asks what consumers will tolerate. Pirates are well on record that something like $1 per song is very tolerable.
Disagreement is not justification for stealing. You want too much for that car, so I'll just take it. That's a metaphor! Obviously a car is not digital media but the concept is exactly the same. Its not like you must have that specific car. Likewise, its not like you must have music and movies.
Time and time again, pirates dance around the fact that what they are really saying is they hate capitalism. Just come out and say you're a socialist; and yet provide nothing to a socialist community. Which more or less means your a parasite on society and a hypocrite.
To date, I've never met a pirate who truly understood the implications of their position. As such, I've never met a pirate who wasn't a hypocrite.
Very few people make money from copyright materials 50 years after publication.
So therefore no one is entitled to continuously benefit from this work? Even if its an extra $0.01, they earned.
Long copyright terms only benefit the owners
Your paycheck only benefits you and your family. Therefore you should probably sign it over to me. That's basically what you're arguing. So if you're sincere in your position, I'll make arrangements to get my mailing address to you.
You mean, away from the pricing structure which pirates previously said was required? You mean, away from extremely reasonable prices (typically less than $1.00 per song)? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the pricing structure now.
Such statements are red herrings, making imaginary excuses to justify an illegal act.
Now if you want to complain about contractual obligations in the music world, you might have a point, but piracy isn't really related to that in the least. Attempting to make such a connection, is again, that same red herring. Besides, there are lots of existing ways to fix the system without taking from those who have worked hard on their copyrighted product.
Only in a pirate's mind is depriving someone of their income equivalent to helping them.
It only requires a couple of people to create a corporation. A corporation need not be a massive conglomerate. Copyright rights affect a massive number of people, including a massive number of individuals who would not have a job without copyright protection.
To be anti-copyright is to be anti-capitalism, or even anti-paycheck.
Yes, because your family should not benefit from your work.
Its funny how many people dislike IP and copyright here on slashdot - until its a question of their paycheck for themselves or their family. Then suddenly there's been a misunderstanding...
Like it or not, LOTS of people, not just huge corporations, make their living from copyrighted materials. By consuming their goods without paying for them, you are depriving them and/or their family of their income.
I would have never guess the percentage was so low since just about everyone I know who has been in the military has qualified for marksman, sharpshooter, or expert. Of course, we all grew up shooting.
Surprisingly enough, not as much as one would expect for 9mm. I was looking at muzzle velocity for various pistol-caliber carbines not long ago - things such as Beretta CX4, or Kel-Tec SUB-2000 - and the increase there was marginal. And MP40 is essentially the same thing, except for automatic fire...
Depending on the barrel and the round, I've seen anywhere from 50-300fps being reported. I've read, though no actual experience, the SUB-2000, for whatever reason, tends not to see much velocity increase. Maybe tolerances or the way it cycles? I dunno. But, again based on what I've read, for the CX4 Storm and the HP995 both tend to see fairly decent velocity increases; highly ammo dependent. In fact, its one of the reasons some police departments use the HP995 as a trunk carbine is for the extra velocity and accuracy. Ya I know, HP, but their carbines actually have REALLY good reputations; with many a reputable gun magazine supporting them.
If you hunt, you can even find a rather humorous story by a PO how took his 995 to a police AR competition and was openly mocked on arrival. By the end of the competition, many other POs were purchasing them after the 995 become a loaner for broken ARs. With an after market stock, it can even look very CX4-ish.
But I'm still skeptical when people go around claiming that 9mm is a "worthless stopper" and you need at least.45 etc. The body count seems to disagree.
Agreed. Science says something completely different and FBI statistics consistently prove modern, non-FMJ, particularly HP, can easily hold their own against 45 and 40SW in self defense scenarios while having the added benefit of a typically faster cycle and recovery. I honestly don't have a problem with someone preferring something else but when they want to get all holy about it, I always seriously wonder about their overall judgment.
I did the math. I know people who work on guided artillery. Its a tough problem with very expensive solutions and not nearly as complex as what you're suggesting.
The rest of it can be ignored because its providing an overly complex and expensive solution which is already being addressed with a superior tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually makes perfect sense. If a topic has stopped growing, by definition, its no longer trendy. Furthermore, that likely means its either petered out or reached critical mass. Either way, trending via twitter no longer matters as its a dead topic or everyone already knows to following.
Trendy:
A fad, sometimes called a trend, meme or a craze, is any form of behavior that develops among a large population and is collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period, generally as a result of the behavior's being perceived as novel in some way.
Large scale conspiracies and secrets can be held for fairly lengthy durations. Decades even, when the information is worth keeping secret. Look at projects like the F-117. Likewise, there are some aviation projects which have been ongoing for decades and all we know is, to paraphrase, by even today's standards, they seem pure science fiction.
Conspiracies happen all the time. But, contrary to common misconception, they need not be nefarious. Some times they are a birthday party. Other times, they save lives and no one ever knows; or at least not for many decades.
But, as you rightly point out, there are costs associated with conspiracies. IMOHO, you left out one variable. What is the benefit of a conspiracy in comparison to maintaining it. By that measure alone, the conspiracy cries here are just dumb. Spending political capital on issues which largely don't matter to the public would be as dumb as believing there is a conspiracy here.
Who knows, there may be a conspiracy at work here. But at the end of the day, there is absolutely zero reason to believe there is a conspiracy which means, for now, we're operating in the realm of the truly paranoid.
And if you bother to read the comments posted to the link you provided, not to mention twitter's own response, you'll easily see the only story here is that people are delusional in falsely believing that twitter is censoring anything. Its a fact which google's statistics as well as the sites which the linked article even validate.
So really the only story here is that people are going out of their way to create a story about the fact there isn't a story to be created. So in short of that, the new story is one of conspiracy which never existed in the first place while trying to hide the fact there never was a story.
Posts like yours are somewhat frustrating because it fuels other paranoid people into believing that conspiracy is everywhere, when in fact, its nothing but self delusion fueled by others of a like-minded delusion. Much like moon landing conspiracies, there is absolutely no reason to give them anything other than a cursory glance.
You're suggesting that Google and Twitter are part of a massive conspiracy to hide a leak of material which largely, everyone who reads, already knows. Obviously, there are some exceptions, but those exceptions largely only serve to fill in detail and cause governmental chaos. Furthermore, you are suggesting that twitter is purposely censoring while Google is not only censoring but reformulating statistical modules to not only up hold the conspiracy, but but to ensure the results match that of twitter.
Which is more likely? People are just not that interested in reading about fairly well known information, which they are already not interested in reading day to day? Or that there is some massive conspiracy involving all of the world's governments and companies, both large and small?
Exactly. If these feelings persist in other facets of your life, medication might be worth reviewing with your doctors.
I said nothing of the like. Your position seems to be that diplomatic channels should not exist.
Free speech is not the same thing as violation of privacy. If it were your privacy, you should as heck wouldn't be complaining about everyone's right to free speech.
To be clear, if they own the works, their use is non-infringing. They are absolutely free to do so. Directly receiving a song in this method would be completely legal.
All this really means is that if you directly received a song via this method of distribution and you are sued for infringement of that specific song, you're legally off because it was legally given to you. After all, I'm pretty sure it would otherwise be considered entrapment.
Knowing foreign policy is not the same thing as being in the same room. In fact, what you suggest is very likely to damage foreign policy efforts.
If diplomats and ambassadors can't have frank discussions then lines of communication have been destroyed. Failure to effectively communicate is the first step toward total chaos.
You make is sound like the public is always left entirely in the dark. When in fact, this latest round of leaks absolutely confirms that the public has always been well informed as to the state of foreign policy.
If you've been the least bit surprised by the majority of the leaks then you've simply maintained your own veil of secrecy despite the media doing their best to lift it.
These types of disclosure only serve to create chaos and harm relationships.
Basically, leaking the bank documents are far, far, far more important than the harmful bullshit pushed so far.
Actually, my view of the world is an almost complete opposite of Glen Beck. More likely is you're projecting.
I would disagree with that. Certainly, quite a lot of people would lose jobs if copyright were to be dropped altogether. However, it wouldn't come to the level of economic collapse. We've had a working capitalist economy without copyright, or without its stringent enforcement, in the past.
I believe you dramatically under estimate the effect IP has on modern economies. Take a look around. Almost everything you see and use on a daily basis is generation income for someone because of IP laws. Without those laws, and associated protections, there is little incentive to create almost anything you've used today.
Always enjoy our exchanges. Its almost like 'ol times on slashdot. Even though to some degree we disagree, its nice to have an exchange with someone who actually knows what they are talking about and therefore has a legitimate view; at least from our armchairs. ;)
So what's the rational for 10-20 years versus say 50-100 years? To me, even ten years seems, far, far too little for software. And many books are enjoyed for generations. As such, fifty years seems like a drop in the bucket.
Think about that. Even ten years ago, Oracle was still a pretty damn good database. Which means they would now be forced to compete with themselves. In that type of market, I can't image being able to purchase an Oracle license for anything less than at least an order of magnitude more than what they currently cost - at least.... Which means, IMOHO, its not really a viable cost model.
Many copyrighted works require staggering investments these days. Its not like the old days where your investment was paper and typesetting. As such, it seems more than reasonable to allow for broad copyright retainment terms so as to allow the creators their best chance possible at not only reaping their benefits, but growing a business out of it.
And that's what seems to elude so many. A successful company built with copyrights is typically very good for society as a whole. A healthy society is one with employment. Healthy companies create employment.
Heck, its fairly easy to argue that a huge chunk of the middle class exists either directly or indirectly because of existing copyright laws. Basically, pirating is attempting to gut both the middle and upper economic segments of our economy; which covers small to large business entities.
I went swimming in Mono Lake in the 90s
Or at least that's what you told your girlfriend. ;) ;)
I made the distinction because far too many pirates believe copyright is only an issue for massive corporations and it has no relevance elsewhere. I was attempting to correct that rampant misconception. Copyright affects everyone for the better.
So what do you consider a reasonable fixed term? Just curious...
If you mean that in a sense of a fixed-term N years copyright, which does not terminate with end of author's life (if he lives less than N years after the date of creation), then that makes sense.
I didn't really say fixed. I meant life + x. But I am not necessarily against alternate approaches, so long as creators are reasonably protected.
For how long?
I never said nor do I believe I have an informed answer. IMOHO, I don't feel the current time limits are necessarily bad. At the same time, if you make them too short, I can see where the system can be gamed such that creators ultimately lose out on the front end.
Well, seeing as "you" are the author and "you" are dead, then yes I agree the author should get nothing. You're advocating paying a corpse?
No, I'm advocating paying him or his heirs the monies which are due them. To be against this means you are against death insurance and even inheritance. So when you die, you spouse should receive none of your stuff.
For whatever reason, people don't seem to have a clue about this stuff. Most IP works off of the notion of royalties. Those royalties are frequently made in exchange for less monies up front. To be against copyright means you are willing to pay $1,000 or more for a single book and likewise for songs. Or, you can be even a slight bit reasonable and realize that they agreed to accept less for slow, lower payouts over the life of their copyright.
I love how free-marketers want the government to stay out of their business when it comes to regulation, but demand the government protect their income.
You have no clue what you're saying. Government exists to regulate markets. There has been and never will be unregulated capitalism. You're position is basically saying, we shouldn't have police and if others wish to take your property, they should be allowed to do so - assuming they can get past you. Basically your argument is garbage.
I just don't think it's right to sacrifice freedom for the sake of greedy corporate regimes
This is yet more stupidity put forth by ignorant pirates who have no idea what they are talking about. Copyrights laws protect TONS of people. TONS of small and medium sized business DIRECTLY benefit from copyright protections. Copyright laws provide massive jobs and create massive wealth all over the world. A good chunk of the money has absolutely nothing to do with "greedy corporate regimes."
Basically you're arguing that despite you have no idea what you're talking about, capitalism is bad and that you are a socialist. If you accept a paycheck, despite your ignorant ranting, are a hypocrite.
Why is that pirates always put statements in other's mouths and then argue the counterpoint to make their point. When you have to do that, its a really strong indicator you have no legitimate point to stand on.
What I implied was, there is nothing wrong with copyright extending beyond an author's death. And I certainly don't have a problem with it covering the length of one's life.
Let's say you write a book. The book goes to a publisher and is accepted. You die. The author and the family should receive nothing? There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about allowing a family to benefit from another family member's labors. Lord of the Rings is a great example.
A pricing structure that typically (in the UK anyhow) charges about 10-20% more** for lossy digital album downloads than it does for lossless physical CDs (with free delivery) has certainly got something seriously wrong with it.
Which absolutely means you are anti-capitalism. Period. End of discussion. Since you likely receive a paycheck because of capitalism, you're a hypocrite. If you make anything above minimum wage, I'll happily accept the difference so as to rid you of your hypocrisy.
The market asks what consumers will tolerate. Pirates are well on record that something like $1 per song is very tolerable.
Disagreement is not justification for stealing. You want too much for that car, so I'll just take it. That's a metaphor! Obviously a car is not digital media but the concept is exactly the same. Its not like you must have that specific car. Likewise, its not like you must have music and movies.
Time and time again, pirates dance around the fact that what they are really saying is they hate capitalism. Just come out and say you're a socialist; and yet provide nothing to a socialist community. Which more or less means your a parasite on society and a hypocrite.
To date, I've never met a pirate who truly understood the implications of their position. As such, I've never met a pirate who wasn't a hypocrite.
Very few people make money from copyright materials 50 years after publication.
So therefore no one is entitled to continuously benefit from this work? Even if its an extra $0.01, they earned.
Long copyright terms only benefit the owners
Your paycheck only benefits you and your family. Therefore you should probably sign it over to me. That's basically what you're arguing. So if you're sincere in your position, I'll make arrangements to get my mailing address to you.
Instead, change your pricing structure
You mean, away from the pricing structure which pirates previously said was required? You mean, away from extremely reasonable prices (typically less than $1.00 per song)? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the pricing structure now.
Such statements are red herrings, making imaginary excuses to justify an illegal act.
Now if you want to complain about contractual obligations in the music world, you might have a point, but piracy isn't really related to that in the least. Attempting to make such a connection, is again, that same red herring. Besides, there are lots of existing ways to fix the system without taking from those who have worked hard on their copyrighted product.
Only in a pirate's mind is depriving someone of their income equivalent to helping them.
It only requires a couple of people to create a corporation. A corporation need not be a massive conglomerate. Copyright rights affect a massive number of people, including a massive number of individuals who would not have a job without copyright protection.
To be anti-copyright is to be anti-capitalism, or even anti-paycheck.
Yes, because your family should not benefit from your work.
Its funny how many people dislike IP and copyright here on slashdot - until its a question of their paycheck for themselves or their family. Then suddenly there's been a misunderstanding...
Like it or not, LOTS of people, not just huge corporations, make their living from copyrighted materials. By consuming their goods without paying for them, you are depriving them and/or their family of their income.
Informative.
I would have never guess the percentage was so low since just about everyone I know who has been in the military has qualified for marksman, sharpshooter, or expert. Of course, we all grew up shooting.
Surprisingly enough, not as much as one would expect for 9mm. I was looking at muzzle velocity for various pistol-caliber carbines not long ago - things such as Beretta CX4, or Kel-Tec SUB-2000 - and the increase there was marginal. And MP40 is essentially the same thing, except for automatic fire...
Depending on the barrel and the round, I've seen anywhere from 50-300fps being reported. I've read, though no actual experience, the SUB-2000, for whatever reason, tends not to see much velocity increase. Maybe tolerances or the way it cycles? I dunno. But, again based on what I've read, for the CX4 Storm and the HP995 both tend to see fairly decent velocity increases; highly ammo dependent. In fact, its one of the reasons some police departments use the HP995 as a trunk carbine is for the extra velocity and accuracy. Ya I know, HP, but their carbines actually have REALLY good reputations; with many a reputable gun magazine supporting them.
If you hunt, you can even find a rather humorous story by a PO how took his 995 to a police AR competition and was openly mocked on arrival. By the end of the competition, many other POs were purchasing them after the 995 become a loaner for broken ARs. With an after market stock, it can even look very CX4-ish.
But I'm still skeptical when people go around claiming that 9mm is a "worthless stopper" and you need at least .45 etc. The body count seems to disagree.
Agreed. Science says something completely different and FBI statistics consistently prove modern, non-FMJ, particularly HP, can easily hold their own against 45 and 40SW in self defense scenarios while having the added benefit of a typically faster cycle and recovery. I honestly don't have a problem with someone preferring something else but when they want to get all holy about it, I always seriously wonder about their overall judgment.
I did the math. I know people who work on guided artillery. Its a tough problem with very expensive solutions and not nearly as complex as what you're suggesting.
The rest of it can be ignored because its providing an overly complex and expensive solution which is already being addressed with a superior tool.