1st, they have to spot you. 2nd, they have to determine you are a threat (or just be in 'kill everyone' mode, which if they are you've other problems).
If you know what you're after, it's not that hard to camouflage yourself from IR optics. They are vulnerable to everything light is, just red shifted by a large margin.
.3006 is not a thing. It's.30-06, meaning.30 caliber 1906.... and a lucky shot to the swashplate, into the turbines, or into the hydraulics or oil resovoir can screw the helicopter something good without touching the pilot.
Swashplate: that thing is spinning FAST. Damage it, and you put the rotors out of balance, and that oscillation will only make things worse. This is an abort condition, if it doesn't outright cause a mechanical failure leading to a crash.
Turbines: Damage the fan blades or early stage compressor blades and you get compressor stalls, which means the engines don't have enough power or outright flameout. Most have two engines, but when one goes the pilot is going to abort.
Hydraulics: dead hydraulics is a death sentence. The pilot will abort, because nobody enjoys an autorotation "landing"
Oil reservoir: just like popping the oil pan on a car - it may continue to run, but not for long.
They have armor, yes, but not as much as you'd think. Weight is a real problem.
We (civilians) already have basic drone capability - at least via RC enthusiasts. For example, my local hacker-space put together a UAV. I could easily see that being used to drop a wad of C4 (which I'm sure they could manufacture) somewhere to cause some damage.
If the shackles were removed (law enforcement and FAA) I'm sure progress in this area would speed immensely. Especially given suitable need.
Yes, because a jacketed 80-grain.30 caliber hitting important targets from a few hundred meters away is so terribly useless. Don't sneer at hunting rifles. Many of the animals we use them on are much harder to kill than people. In fact the ammunition we use is also a lot more effective and dangerous than what the military is authorized to use.
Sure, you've got an argument against most if not all pistol class weapons, but that's only a small part of the matter.
To complete the picture, give the kid a hand grenade while you're at it - because they are a threat to everyone in throwing distance including themselves. You certainly don't want them to keep it, but you can't just rush it either.
No, but if a kid with Down's Syndrom is waving a knife or other weapon around and having a tantrum you move away or take it from them (depending, of course).
We're all stuck on this rock, so we can't move away from the DPRK. The only thing we can do is let it play out and try not to get stabbed, yank it out of their grip with dexterity, or wait for an opening and tackle them down.
You tried the "The communists hate because they hate us and you can't reason with them so we must destroy them all" -tactic with much greater force in Vietnam and it failed there.
I don't see any such argument here. Only if you skim and don't actually read?
Slashdot Mirror
1st, they have to spot you. 2nd, they have to determine you are a threat (or just be in 'kill everyone' mode, which if they are you've other problems).
If you know what you're after, it's not that hard to camouflage yourself from IR optics. They are vulnerable to everything light is, just red shifted by a large margin.
.3006 is not a thing. It's .30-06, meaning .30 caliber 1906. ... and a lucky shot to the swashplate, into the turbines, or into the hydraulics or oil resovoir can screw the helicopter something good without touching the pilot.
Swashplate: that thing is spinning FAST. Damage it, and you put the rotors out of balance, and that oscillation will only make things worse. This is an abort condition, if it doesn't outright cause a mechanical failure leading to a crash.
Turbines: Damage the fan blades or early stage compressor blades and you get compressor stalls, which means the engines don't have enough power or outright flameout. Most have two engines, but when one goes the pilot is going to abort.
Hydraulics: dead hydraulics is a death sentence. The pilot will abort, because nobody enjoys an autorotation "landing"
Oil reservoir: just like popping the oil pan on a car - it may continue to run, but not for long.
They have armor, yes, but not as much as you'd think. Weight is a real problem.
So, because old people fuck up in traffic too, we should look at preventing people from driving?
You mean, exactly what would happen in this hypothetical case?
We (civilians) already have basic drone capability - at least via RC enthusiasts. For example, my local hacker-space put together a UAV. I could easily see that being used to drop a wad of C4 (which I'm sure they could manufacture) somewhere to cause some damage.
If the shackles were removed (law enforcement and FAA) I'm sure progress in this area would speed immensely. Especially given suitable need.
Yes, because a jacketed 80-grain .30 caliber hitting important targets from a few hundred meters away is so terribly useless. Don't sneer at hunting rifles. Many of the animals we use them on are much harder to kill than people. In fact the ammunition we use is also a lot more effective and dangerous than what the military is authorized to use.
Sure, you've got an argument against most if not all pistol class weapons, but that's only a small part of the matter.
That sounds painful. Absolutely painful.
Directories, my friend. Directories.
Or do you put everything in one pile?
That would be "Photoshop Essentials" would it not?
MSDN lets you download it. Hell, you can download DOS!
Of course, you have to know someone with a subscription...
I bet you both are less expensive than a Surface Pro, and doesn't require him to toss his tablet aside.
So instead of being a jackass, you might point out why it should be obvious?
I don't see the connection. Your correlations are obvious. Mine is not.
To complete the picture, give the kid a hand grenade while you're at it - because they are a threat to everyone in throwing distance including themselves. You certainly don't want them to keep it, but you can't just rush it either.
No, but if a kid with Down's Syndrom is waving a knife or other weapon around and having a tantrum you move away or take it from them (depending, of course).
We're all stuck on this rock, so we can't move away from the DPRK. The only thing we can do is let it play out and try not to get stabbed, yank it out of their grip with dexterity, or wait for an opening and tackle them down.
Line breaks, do you have them?
It's solved plenty of individual problems.
So, you're saying because it can't fix the problem for everyone all at once, it's not worth doing?
Intelligence as well, not just creativity (assuming you are not considering creativity a form/product of intelligence)
In all seriousness, there seems to be correlation between intelligence and tendency for depression.
It could be that being a hacker and being depressed are just two end products of being smarter than the average bear.
Now you just sound like a tool. Didn't bother to read past this.
Maybe if you had read further you wouldn't think that?
You tried the "The communists hate because they hate us and you can't reason with them so we must destroy them all" -tactic with much greater force in Vietnam and it failed there.
I don't see any such argument here. Only if you skim and don't actually read?
I see his words, and see objective statements. I see your words and they speak of insult.
Guess which of the two seems more credible?
So you're telling me there's no significant difference between 1/100 and 99/100?
No, I don't. However, throwing it out there will guarantee it's exploitation.
Because hiding it would look even worse?