There is more than one alternative to absolute permissiveness. Going completely Police State would screw the kid up just as much as allowing him to do anything he wants.
I'll gladly give you Lumines as a great game. Even Katamari. But Tekken on a handheld with lousy controls? Hot shots golf? Wipeout? Besides, only one of the games you mentioned was actually developed for the PSP. The rest are licenses shoe-horned into a small screen with bad battery life and bad controls. Your idea of what a good game is might differ from mine, but you basically listed one game as must-have for a console that's been out for 3 years. That's not a stable, that's barely mediocre.
Not only that - it is probably the worst controller I've ever used. Played one of the Dexter games on it for 20 minute, and my hand hurt more than after any 10 hour Xbox or Gamecube session. Granted, I have fairly big hands, and the little nubs on the PSP are probably not designed for me. But still - I will never, ever use the PSP as a controller. I don't think I could even if I wanted to. And I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one in this category.
I think that if evil doers are doing evil even while the police is around (which is what was going on at the WTO "protests"), a journalist will not be able to stop them at all. As a matter of fact, he/she would be far more vulnerable than the police, and will draw just as much ire.
Leave policing to the police. It's not my job to hand over anything and everything everytime a cop says "i want to see that".
Define performance. I think that if you look at the actual numbers, what people don't realize is that you can't have 30%-100% growth all the time. At some point, Jobs will have turned the company around, and it will slip back to more reasonable, single-digit growth rates. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I've seen this with a number of companies. People start to believe that a temporary blip, like the introduction of the iPod and Apple's subsequent explosive growth in revenue, is forever. Then they get pissed when they find out it isn't, and blame it on obvious incompetence by management. Instead, the problem lies strictly with vastly exaggerated expectations. Remember the little blurb about past performance not predicting future performance? It's there for a reason.
I think you're right, but I also think that this is a little more vitriolic than previous articles on how Apple launches don't excite anymore. Yes, there is no new iPod (did anyone see that coming when it was announced anyway?). Yes, there is no new Mac like product, and we won't see advertising to match it either. But is that really surprising? Do these people really expect that Apple will release every year a new, ground breaking product? Is every conference going to be life-changing? Of course not. Yet judging from the article, that seems to be exactly what's expected.
You know, to me, this sounds simply like this specific journalist drank too much of his own kool-aid, and is disappointed that Apple and Jobs don't live up to the hype that he probably created himself in earlier articles. And now he is frustrated, and vents his frustration in a meaningless articles. Kinda reminds me of how the Spice girls fell. First everyone loved them. Then, suddenly everyone hated them, even though their music really hadn't changed. I think the same thing might happen to Apple and Jobs if they make even minor missteps. Everyone will be so happy to make some new predictions that they'll be announcing the emperor's nakedness even before the emperor is on the street.
Personally, I'll just enjoy what Apple is doing so far. The iPod is great, and while I'd love the full-screen iPod if it ever comes to pass, I'm happy to wait for it. Same with a MacBook that doesn't burn and can play Spore.
Oh, please. Stop. You're just digging deeper. You truly don't understand the difference, do you? I'll start answering your question first: No, there would be no difference between the two. I trust Cheney to be smart enough to not use blatant lies in an open presentation. I also trust him to quote as many sources as possible, just to give himself the aura of presentability. In that sense, both movies will be the same. I know who the author is. The purpose of the film is clearly stated. Sources are sourced, and I can trace them and verify them.
Now as to why I'm calling you morally bankrupt: you are incapable of differentiating between an upfront call for action, or at the very least discussion, and the clandestine, paid-for personal attack on a public figure. I don't care that you think that it is full of begged questions, dubious science and presented by a public animal. I'd be happy to discuss with you whether or not the physics are correct, even if I'm tired of the trite old arguments that invariably get pulled out. I'd even be happy to discuss why you think that a political animal cannot put out material that actually is not propaganda, even if I know that the discussion will veer into defining and re-defining what propaganda is. But what pisses me off are people who are either too apathetic or too stupid to even try and discern the difference between these two movies, and I'm tired of just being polite on this subject.
Again, your entire diatribe about a sacred cow and different conclusions is completely besides the point. My response to you had nothing to do with what you think about global warming. It had everything to do with your smug relativism. Far from allowing you to make better judgments, it will just give you excuses not to do anything.
You are living a sad, sad life if you can't find the beauty that lies in the mathematics of spots. Or in the organization of an ant hill. Or in the smile of the Mona Lisa. Or in a rose on a rainy day. Or in the game of Life. Or..... you get the idea. I find people who find wonder in these things are far more interesting (and coincidentally, achieve more) than those who are always chasing "real" wonder.
So you're saying that in order to stop Hezbollah, israel should just commit genocide? Indeed - it's certainly one way to go about it. However, and even disregarding any discussion about actual effectiveness, at that point we would have truly reached the situation where Israel will have become everything it decried about its opponent. It will have become exactly like Syria and Egypt. Is this what you're aiming for?
Sorry, but claiming you're a civilized society entails that you abide by civilized standards. Which means that what Israel is doing right now is neither effective nor civilized, and will therefore leave it in a worse situation than before. Sad to see that they actually haven't learned anything at all from their previous engagements and from their enemies behavior.
And like a lot of other people, you seem to not be able to grasp the difference between an up-front presentation about things that are happening right and a personal attack where the author is hidden.
It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?
What TFA conveniently fails to point out is that all the players in the telecoms industry are ALREADY regulated. In other words, every problem that is associated with Net Neutrality legislation is already present. Huge bureaucracy? Check. You can even see directly where regulation affects your bill - it's hidden in those emergency fund fees, connection fund fees, access fees and all kinds of others that I forget. Players that have a huge interest in meddling with congress and elected officials? Check. Or why do you think that Comcast has a government sanctioned monopoly to deliver my cable? Monopolies propped up by regulation? Check. Check. And check again.
The idea that Net Neutrality bills will somehow change the telecoms industry from being a free-market free-for-all to being a regulated nightmare is at best naive, and at worst a blatant lie. It already is a regulated nightmare. A net neutrality bill is only supposed to prevent current monopoly owners from further gaming the system.
You know what I'd really like to see? A government-regulated utility that only controls the wires. No service, no nothing. Just pure hardware. And ATT, SBC, Speakeasy, AOL and all the rest can compete on services all day long. Either that, or forbid anyone who owns wires to sell service. What's that you say? That'd be inefficient, and there'd be no incentive to develop new technologies? I'm sorry, but I've been stuck on the same crummy DSL speed for the last 6 years. I physically can't get a better connection, unless I ask SBC to lay some fiber to my complex, or move closer to the DSLAM. Thanks to the existing monopoly, there already is close to zero innovation. I don't think swapping out one stagnant entity for another is somehow gonna make me worse off. Plus, I get to vote out politicians who don't fund Internet improvement bills. I can't do anything like that with SBC.
Look up negative externalities. Look up when corporations clean up their pollution. Yeah, it's popular to point to GE as leading the charge in voluntary green policies. But you know why everyone points to them? Because they are the first frickin corporation to actually put green technology into its products and processes because it thinks it'll make it more efficient. And one of the only ones. And you know why they're doing it? Because oil finally costs enough that this might be a good idea on its own market-based merits.
So no, the post I replied to didn't show a proof. It merely stated basic Econ 101 knowledge, which is also knowledge that anyone browsing through basic newspaper stories could acquire on their own. Negative externalities are neither difficult to grasp, nor are they difficult to see in action.
I always find it interesting that every single time that Dada21 is shown to be factually incorrect, he is quiet and does not reply. Yet you can find his replies all over posts that either do not challenge his holes or argue something where he is indeed right. To boot, I can guarantee you that he will repeat his statement (in this case, that pollution is only cut by industries trying to reduce waste and increase inefficiencies) the next time an article on that topic rolls around. To me, it shows a man who is supremely in love with himself. Lucky for him he is smart enough to take advantage of the rest of his skills.
I wouldn't mind his nonsense, if it wouldn't generate so many replies and clutter up the discussion.
voted against it. I'm shocked. My elected representative has actually done something that requires a spine??? I guess I'm lucky. Mr Honda, you just dramatically upped the likelihood that I vote for you in the next election.
I take it you that before looking at over-the-air broadcasts of NBC, ABC and others, you first contact them in writing and get their permission to look what's being broadcast in clear. I mean, yeah, it's radiation, it's unencrypted, but they just might not want YOU to watch what their broadcasting. After all, only 10% of the networks actually want people to watch for free. Besides, their headquarters and contact info is widely known, so it's not like it's hard to ask for permission. Right?
And before you simply state that connecting to unsecured wireless networks opens you up to criminal lawsuits, two things: source that statement, and note that laws are neither immutable nor necessarily legitimate. Or do you also adhere to the no-spitting-on-Sunday laws?
Sheesh - maybe I should have just used my mod points.
So riddle me this - if mass, or density, is all it takes to get this stuff going, then why doesn't LA, NYC, Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Philly, or any other densely populated area in the US have this? Oh wait - that's because it has little to do with density, but all with ROI. Why should a telecom company upgrade the lousy DSL lines when it can get as much profit from them now as from Fiber in the future? The only reason we at least have DSL and aren't still working with modems is because DSL runs over the phone lines. There was little hardware that needed upgrading to get this service going.
Oh, and by the way, there have been numerous FTTP projects in the US... I remember the first announcements of pilot projects happened years ago. To top it off, my entire college was wired with Fiber... in 1993! It's neither a problem of density, nor of technology. It's simply a problem with telecoms still being able to extract monopoly rents from their infrastructure. There is no incentive for them to upgrade anything as long as they have monopolies on infrastructure access.
Here's how it works: how many CxO positions are there? Now think about how many people are actually capable of being successful in that position. The lack of good people means that the ones who actually are good at this command massive cash - and the ones that just happen to have gotten lucky can ride the salary demands of the really good people.
Dammit - three shiny mod points, and not one of them says "-1, wrong AND conceited". The point of these laws is that you really can't do all these things and still be safe. You could be driving on a freeway in ND, which is straight for miles and miles and has not a single car on it, and you could still get into an accident - pothole you didn't see, moose hanging out in the road..... You being able to do all these things and not crash really has nothing to do with your skill, ability, or anything - but simple luck and the ability of other drivers to avoid you. I know as a matter of fact that every time I take my eyes off the road or my hands off the wheel for whatever reason, I tempt fate. And so do you.
What pisses ME off the most is that some people feel that just because they are old enough to hold a driver license, their ability to do most anything - whether it is vote, drive, do rocket science or raise kids - goes up to genius level.
So you actually believe anytime a corporation says they won't do something, because it is so obviously evil? Like, I don't know, reduce safety precautions at a chemical plant in Bhopal and then say that it isn't a problem? Or, perhaps, argue that employees would never dare to hack black-box electronic voting machines? I know, these are extreme examples. But keep in mind that corporations are by definition exactly like sociopaths - complete with a propensity to lie continuously and without scruples. To take a corporation at its word - especially when its word is at such obvious odds with profit potentials - would be naive at best.
This article is neither FUD, nor are the people who submit this story simply interested in dragging Sony through the mud. Instead, keeping this story in the news, along with the disgust it generates, is the only way we can keep Sony from going forward with this lame-brained idea. Personally, I'm quite to see it pop up regularly on Slashdot. It means people are still as pissed off about this idea as when it was first floated. And I'll be quite happy to burn karma and call out people who simply post a message without substance about how they're tired of hearing about it.
And since when is the X360 sainted? If there is anything that has everyone drooling, it's the Wii. At least get your insults right.
You're completely right that this system is nothing but a boondoggle designed to fill Northrop-Grumman's coffers. Here's why - and you don't even need to be a laser scientist or economist to figure out.
Look at Israel - target number one of every wannabe jihadist and terrorist for the last 30 years. What's their primary problem? People walking around in public places and blowing themselves up. And this is despite counter-terrorism measures that are far harsher than anything Washington, DC is dreaming up. Technology and counter-measures are good at only one thing: moving the threat from one place to another; they can't possibly eliminate it. Especially if survival of the attacker is optional. Which means that if politicians and military brss would be serious about lowering the chances of an attack, they'd be thinking about eliminating the terrorist and the cicumstances that create terrorists. But that'd take guts, balls and brains. Let's hope Washington gets lucky at least.
So are you saying that the article is incorrect in its assessment of the potential impact of such a patent? Or are you just unhappy that your favorite system isn't lauded to the sky by all and everyone?
Slashdot Mirror
There is more than one alternative to absolute permissiveness. Going completely Police State would screw the kid up just as much as allowing him to do anything he wants.
Err, make that "released two years ago". Can't read properly today. :)
I'll gladly give you Lumines as a great game. Even Katamari. But Tekken on a handheld with lousy controls? Hot shots golf? Wipeout? Besides, only one of the games you mentioned was actually developed for the PSP. The rest are licenses shoe-horned into a small screen with bad battery life and bad controls. Your idea of what a good game is might differ from mine, but you basically listed one game as must-have for a console that's been out for 3 years. That's not a stable, that's barely mediocre.
Not only that - it is probably the worst controller I've ever used. Played one of the Dexter games on it for 20 minute, and my hand hurt more than after any 10 hour Xbox or Gamecube session. Granted, I have fairly big hands, and the little nubs on the PSP are probably not designed for me. But still - I will never, ever use the PSP as a controller. I don't think I could even if I wanted to. And I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one in this category.
I think that if evil doers are doing evil even while the police is around (which is what was going on at the WTO "protests"), a journalist will not be able to stop them at all. As a matter of fact, he/she would be far more vulnerable than the police, and will draw just as much ire.
Leave policing to the police. It's not my job to hand over anything and everything everytime a cop says "i want to see that".
Define performance. I think that if you look at the actual numbers, what people don't realize is that you can't have 30%-100% growth all the time. At some point, Jobs will have turned the company around, and it will slip back to more reasonable, single-digit growth rates. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I've seen this with a number of companies. People start to believe that a temporary blip, like the introduction of the iPod and Apple's subsequent explosive growth in revenue, is forever. Then they get pissed when they find out it isn't, and blame it on obvious incompetence by management. Instead, the problem lies strictly with vastly exaggerated expectations. Remember the little blurb about past performance not predicting future performance? It's there for a reason.
I think you're right, but I also think that this is a little more vitriolic than previous articles on how Apple launches don't excite anymore. Yes, there is no new iPod (did anyone see that coming when it was announced anyway?). Yes, there is no new Mac like product, and we won't see advertising to match it either. But is that really surprising? Do these people really expect that Apple will release every year a new, ground breaking product? Is every conference going to be life-changing? Of course not. Yet judging from the article, that seems to be exactly what's expected.
You know, to me, this sounds simply like this specific journalist drank too much of his own kool-aid, and is disappointed that Apple and Jobs don't live up to the hype that he probably created himself in earlier articles. And now he is frustrated, and vents his frustration in a meaningless articles. Kinda reminds me of how the Spice girls fell. First everyone loved them. Then, suddenly everyone hated them, even though their music really hadn't changed. I think the same thing might happen to Apple and Jobs if they make even minor missteps. Everyone will be so happy to make some new predictions that they'll be announcing the emperor's nakedness even before the emperor is on the street.
Personally, I'll just enjoy what Apple is doing so far. The iPod is great, and while I'd love the full-screen iPod if it ever comes to pass, I'm happy to wait for it. Same with a MacBook that doesn't burn and can play Spore.
Oh, please. Stop. You're just digging deeper. You truly don't understand the difference, do you? I'll start answering your question first: No, there would be no difference between the two. I trust Cheney to be smart enough to not use blatant lies in an open presentation. I also trust him to quote as many sources as possible, just to give himself the aura of presentability. In that sense, both movies will be the same. I know who the author is. The purpose of the film is clearly stated. Sources are sourced, and I can trace them and verify them.
Now as to why I'm calling you morally bankrupt: you are incapable of differentiating between an upfront call for action, or at the very least discussion, and the clandestine, paid-for personal attack on a public figure. I don't care that you think that it is full of begged questions, dubious science and presented by a public animal. I'd be happy to discuss with you whether or not the physics are correct, even if I'm tired of the trite old arguments that invariably get pulled out. I'd even be happy to discuss why you think that a political animal cannot put out material that actually is not propaganda, even if I know that the discussion will veer into defining and re-defining what propaganda is. But what pisses me off are people who are either too apathetic or too stupid to even try and discern the difference between these two movies, and I'm tired of just being polite on this subject.
Again, your entire diatribe about a sacred cow and different conclusions is completely besides the point. My response to you had nothing to do with what you think about global warming. It had everything to do with your smug relativism. Far from allowing you to make better judgments, it will just give you excuses not to do anything.
You are living a sad, sad life if you can't find the beauty that lies in the mathematics of spots. Or in the organization of an ant hill. Or in the smile of the Mona Lisa. Or in a rose on a rainy day. Or in the game of Life. Or..... you get the idea. I find people who find wonder in these things are far more interesting (and coincidentally, achieve more) than those who are always chasing "real" wonder.
So you're saying that in order to stop Hezbollah, israel should just commit genocide? Indeed - it's certainly one way to go about it. However, and even disregarding any discussion about actual effectiveness, at that point we would have truly reached the situation where Israel will have become everything it decried about its opponent. It will have become exactly like Syria and Egypt. Is this what you're aiming for?
Sorry, but claiming you're a civilized society entails that you abide by civilized standards. Which means that what Israel is doing right now is neither effective nor civilized, and will therefore leave it in a worse situation than before. Sad to see that they actually haven't learned anything at all from their previous engagements and from their enemies behavior.
And like a lot of other people, you seem to not be able to grasp the difference between an up-front presentation about things that are happening right and a personal attack where the author is hidden.
It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?
What TFA conveniently fails to point out is that all the players in the telecoms industry are ALREADY regulated. In other words, every problem that is associated with Net Neutrality legislation is already present. Huge bureaucracy? Check. You can even see directly where regulation affects your bill - it's hidden in those emergency fund fees, connection fund fees, access fees and all kinds of others that I forget. Players that have a huge interest in meddling with congress and elected officials? Check. Or why do you think that Comcast has a government sanctioned monopoly to deliver my cable? Monopolies propped up by regulation? Check. Check. And check again.
The idea that Net Neutrality bills will somehow change the telecoms industry from being a free-market free-for-all to being a regulated nightmare is at best naive, and at worst a blatant lie. It already is a regulated nightmare. A net neutrality bill is only supposed to prevent current monopoly owners from further gaming the system.
You know what I'd really like to see? A government-regulated utility that only controls the wires. No service, no nothing. Just pure hardware. And ATT, SBC, Speakeasy, AOL and all the rest can compete on services all day long. Either that, or forbid anyone who owns wires to sell service. What's that you say? That'd be inefficient, and there'd be no incentive to develop new technologies? I'm sorry, but I've been stuck on the same crummy DSL speed for the last 6 years. I physically can't get a better connection, unless I ask SBC to lay some fiber to my complex, or move closer to the DSLAM. Thanks to the existing monopoly, there already is close to zero innovation. I don't think swapping out one stagnant entity for another is somehow gonna make me worse off. Plus, I get to vote out politicians who don't fund Internet improvement bills. I can't do anything like that with SBC.
I'll be damned. I guess I learn something new everyday... thanks for pointing that out.
Dammit, this should be +5, insightful, not funny. They're the last public figures with balls and decency. I'd be all over them in a heartbeat.
Roots need nitrogen among other things, but no oxygen or CO2.
Look up negative externalities. Look up when corporations clean up their pollution. Yeah, it's popular to point to GE as leading the charge in voluntary green policies. But you know why everyone points to them? Because they are the first frickin corporation to actually put green technology into its products and processes because it thinks it'll make it more efficient. And one of the only ones. And you know why they're doing it? Because oil finally costs enough that this might be a good idea on its own market-based merits.
So no, the post I replied to didn't show a proof. It merely stated basic Econ 101 knowledge, which is also knowledge that anyone browsing through basic newspaper stories could acquire on their own. Negative externalities are neither difficult to grasp, nor are they difficult to see in action.
I always find it interesting that every single time that Dada21 is shown to be factually incorrect, he is quiet and does not reply. Yet you can find his replies all over posts that either do not challenge his holes or argue something where he is indeed right. To boot, I can guarantee you that he will repeat his statement (in this case, that pollution is only cut by industries trying to reduce waste and increase inefficiencies) the next time an article on that topic rolls around. To me, it shows a man who is supremely in love with himself. Lucky for him he is smart enough to take advantage of the rest of his skills.
I wouldn't mind his nonsense, if it wouldn't generate so many replies and clutter up the discussion.
voted against it. I'm shocked. My elected representative has actually done something that requires a spine??? I guess I'm lucky. Mr Honda, you just dramatically upped the likelihood that I vote for you in the next election.
I take it you that before looking at over-the-air broadcasts of NBC, ABC and others, you first contact them in writing and get their permission to look what's being broadcast in clear. I mean, yeah, it's radiation, it's unencrypted, but they just might not want YOU to watch what their broadcasting. After all, only 10% of the networks actually want people to watch for free. Besides, their headquarters and contact info is widely known, so it's not like it's hard to ask for permission. Right?
And before you simply state that connecting to unsecured wireless networks opens you up to criminal lawsuits, two things: source that statement, and note that laws are neither immutable nor necessarily legitimate. Or do you also adhere to the no-spitting-on-Sunday laws?
Sheesh - maybe I should have just used my mod points.
So riddle me this - if mass, or density, is all it takes to get this stuff going, then why doesn't LA, NYC, Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Philly, or any other densely populated area in the US have this? Oh wait - that's because it has little to do with density, but all with ROI. Why should a telecom company upgrade the lousy DSL lines when it can get as much profit from them now as from Fiber in the future? The only reason we at least have DSL and aren't still working with modems is because DSL runs over the phone lines. There was little hardware that needed upgrading to get this service going.
Oh, and by the way, there have been numerous FTTP projects in the US... I remember the first announcements of pilot projects happened years ago. To top it off, my entire college was wired with Fiber... in 1993! It's neither a problem of density, nor of technology. It's simply a problem with telecoms still being able to extract monopoly rents from their infrastructure. There is no incentive for them to upgrade anything as long as they have monopolies on infrastructure access.
Here's how it works: how many CxO positions are there? Now think about how many people are actually capable of being successful in that position. The lack of good people means that the ones who actually are good at this command massive cash - and the ones that just happen to have gotten lucky can ride the salary demands of the really good people.
Dammit - three shiny mod points, and not one of them says "-1, wrong AND conceited". The point of these laws is that you really can't do all these things and still be safe. You could be driving on a freeway in ND, which is straight for miles and miles and has not a single car on it, and you could still get into an accident - pothole you didn't see, moose hanging out in the road..... You being able to do all these things and not crash really has nothing to do with your skill, ability, or anything - but simple luck and the ability of other drivers to avoid you. I know as a matter of fact that every time I take my eyes off the road or my hands off the wheel for whatever reason, I tempt fate. And so do you.
What pisses ME off the most is that some people feel that just because they are old enough to hold a driver license, their ability to do most anything - whether it is vote, drive, do rocket science or raise kids - goes up to genius level.
So you actually believe anytime a corporation says they won't do something, because it is so obviously evil? Like, I don't know, reduce safety precautions at a chemical plant in Bhopal and then say that it isn't a problem? Or, perhaps, argue that employees would never dare to hack black-box electronic voting machines? I know, these are extreme examples. But keep in mind that corporations are by definition exactly like sociopaths - complete with a propensity to lie continuously and without scruples. To take a corporation at its word - especially when its word is at such obvious odds with profit potentials - would be naive at best.
This article is neither FUD, nor are the people who submit this story simply interested in dragging Sony through the mud. Instead, keeping this story in the news, along with the disgust it generates, is the only way we can keep Sony from going forward with this lame-brained idea. Personally, I'm quite to see it pop up regularly on Slashdot. It means people are still as pissed off about this idea as when it was first floated. And I'll be quite happy to burn karma and call out people who simply post a message without substance about how they're tired of hearing about it.
And since when is the X360 sainted? If there is anything that has everyone drooling, it's the Wii. At least get your insults right.
You're completely right that this system is nothing but a boondoggle designed to fill Northrop-Grumman's coffers. Here's why - and you don't even need to be a laser scientist or economist to figure out.
Look at Israel - target number one of every wannabe jihadist and terrorist for the last 30 years. What's their primary problem? People walking around in public places and blowing themselves up. And this is despite counter-terrorism measures that are far harsher than anything Washington, DC is dreaming up. Technology and counter-measures are good at only one thing: moving the threat from one place to another; they can't possibly eliminate it. Especially if survival of the attacker is optional. Which means that if politicians and military brss would be serious about lowering the chances of an attack, they'd be thinking about eliminating the terrorist and the cicumstances that create terrorists. But that'd take guts, balls and brains. Let's hope Washington gets lucky at least.
So are you saying that the article is incorrect in its assessment of the potential impact of such a patent? Or are you just unhappy that your favorite system isn't lauded to the sky by all and everyone?