Yeah, whenever someone calls you an idiot, that's because they're being defensive. After all, your mommy told you that you're a really special kid! And your sunday school teacher was very impressed with that presentation you gave, proving that the earth is 6,000 years old. Clearly it's all those scienticians and edumacated intemalectuals who are teh dumb, not you!
Why is there always some moron who has to chime in with the "DUH, U MUST KARE 'COS YER TALKING!!11!1" bullshit?
If that's your response, then you don't understand what I'm saying, and you don't understand what's being discussed. And you fail at basic logic, anyway.
Now, the fact that they cant explain it doesn't exactly lend any credibility to the story. If I invented cold fusion, irregardless if I could explain it or not, I would have every scientist I could find come look at it.
Eh. Personally, I'd have James Randi come take a look. That million-dollar-prize would eliminate the need to go looking for funding, and the publicity generated by winning it would be better than any friggin' TV commercials. I'd be a billionaire by the end of the week.
It doesn't orbit, and it doesn't "get energy". You know how you middle-school teachers showed you that picture of an atom that looks sorta like a little solar-system? Yeah, well they lied to you. Throw all that out the window, and go take a university course on particle physics.
I would presume that most governments would maintain similar ability to commandeer any technology that could be considered of national security interest, and limitless, virtually free energy would certainly come under that heading.
I don't see how. "Limitless virtually free" energy doesn't have any national security implications unless it's also really easy to make, AND really easy to weaponize, a-la the Outer Limits episode with the "cold fusion bomb".
You're right, it's not entrapment... on the other hand, if the owner of a particular work (or their representative) goes on a public site and says "hey guys, download this!", how does it make sense to sue people who download it? In this case, the content is being distributed by those who have the right to do so, ergo no laws are being broken, right?
In fact, I would think most people agree that apart from the one file you found, if you consider all of the rest, some very large percentage is either fake or useless, crap, or is not downloadable.
Sure, and 90% of all e-mail is spam. I'm surprised that this would surprise anyone:) Sturgeon's Law has been with us since 1958 - you figure people would have gotten used to it by now.
Well, I've never been, so it would be hard for me to go back. However, I'm sure that someone will go there within the next decade or two. Whether they'll be American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian.... that's an open question.
And the likelihood of any given person dying at the hands of a Pope-sponsored jihad? Certainly lower than your chances of dying to terrorism.
At the moment, yes. You sure you read what I wrote?
So why is it okay to live in fear of the Pope, but foolish to live in fear of dying to terrorism?
I think both are equally foolish. I don't fear the pope or the mullahs - I just want to see them destroyed, and their evil idologies wiped from the mind of man.
There are numerous self-styled smart dudes here who would be hasten to point out that many of our anti-terror measures are pointless, and we're wasting money and time on counteracting a threat that, on a societal scale, is fairly minor. But the fact that the Pope *could* influence a handful of Catholics if he declared a jihad is somehow something to be worried about?
Something to consider, and to mitigate before it becomes a problem. If that's what you mean by "worry", then yes. If, on the other hand, you mean something along the lines of "invade the Vatican", then no.
That is because you can disagree with someone and still listen to what they are saying and perhaps agree with other points.
It's not a question of disagreement, though. I can disagree with Bush and I can disagree with Obama, and I can look at parts of what they say and acknowledge that they make a good point, sure. But I don't care what L. Ron Hubbard says, and I don't care what Ahmadinejad says, nor do I care what the Iranian mullahs, Kim Jong Il, or the pope have to say. All of the above-mentioned individuals long ago gave up any right to be taken seriously on any subject, and I'd much rather see them deposed and imprisoned than sit and listen to their diatribes. I don't care if they have a good idea about how to build high-quality solar pannels for the poor using feces and industrial waste; I don't want to hear about it because the source truly has poisoned the information.
It's the old question of whether it's moral to use research that was gathered through the torture of prisoners in concentration camps during WW2. Either you think that it is, or you think that it isn't. It has noting to do with disagreement, and everything to do with how we define our individual morali
Actually, if the Pope said that in 2011, he would be roundly ignored, other than to have a bunch of Catholics around the world go, "Um.... no?"
If you believe that, I've got some nice Vatican-side property to sell ya...
You know, most muslims don't go around killing infidels either, but it only takes 0.1% of that population to cause some serious problems. If you think that a proclamation of Jihad from the Vatican wouldn't motivate thousands of lunatics to go out and murder, rape, and pillage, you're a fool.
And if the Catholic Church was a vast nation state or empire where its leadership had considerable political power, I'd be worried. As it is, no one is being forced to be a Catholic, so I don't care all that much.
Naw, ya don't have ta bee a Cat-o-lick, see? By da way, dat sure is a nice soul ya gots there. Be a shame if something were ta... "happen" to it.. kapiche?
I agree with you for the most part... but, honestly, do you really think that either Obama or Bush writes his own speeches? The content of their speeches has nothing to do with their intelligence - it says more about the intelligence of their speech-writers, and their target demographic.
Don't you just love the excuses? Imagine if in the 60's everyone was saying "go to the moon? That's impossible!"
It would have taken a couple decades longer, been safer, gotten better value for the money, and maybe resulted in a space program which actually established a base there instead of just collecting rocks?
If that list took bandwidth throttling and monthly transfer caps into account, Canada and Australia would be FAR lower. Not to mention that - at least in Canada - the "rated speed" is rarely the actual speed, unless you live in the middle of a major city. Even in the suburbs you often see problems with 7mbps connections having to be "downgraded" to 4mbps or lower, just to stop them from crapping out because of the poor line quality. They don't downgrade your bill, though.
Considering the kind of service we get here, it always makes me smile when Americans complain about their connection speeds.
Well, yeah, I was going to mention that, but didn't really see the need to pile on any more. Anyway, depending on the situation, you might not want your AWACS operating that close, so the F-22 comes in rather handy as a way to extend your range.
Air superiority aircraft. When you're defensive, you don't have to have a lot of stealth ones. Just enough to force enemy stealth fighters to power up their own fire control radar. The numbers are real, and have been published by various credible defense journals, Jane's being one.
Ah, that makes more sense. Not sure why you think this would force anyone to "power up their own fire control radar", though. In simulated engagements F-22's have generally operated on passive sensors, even when engaged by an opposing force an order of magnitude larger than their own.
US is not expecting to field it's craft in the neutral or friendly, but hostile territory.
The US isn't planning on flying it's aircraft thousands of miles into enemy territory - most engagements are likely to take place over neutral territory or coastal areas. Do you honestly think that the US wants to invade mainland China?
This means that friendly guidance vs even low grade stealth is going to be non-existent, and enemy ground radar installations are functional and unsuppresed.
I don't see how that follows, even given your initial (flawed) premise.
The goal of chinese fighter is NOT to win toe-to-toe match vs F-22. It's goal is to push back US AWACS craft into ineffective range and force F-22s to fire up their own fire control radar or retreat due to lack of targeting data when achieving it's main task of winning air superiority.
Sure. Good luck with that. Before you can push back the AWACS, you have to get through the F-22's, F-35's, and assorted other aircraft being fielded. This is a bit like saying "the goal of our infantry is to push back their artillery". Far easier said than done.
And for this, chinese don't need 2000 air superiority aircraft. They need a small percentage of stealth air superiority fighters and a large conventional air superiority force which will move in the moment F-22's stealth is compromised.
A "small percentage of stealth aircraft" isn't likely to compromise anything. They'd have to detect the F-22 - which seems highly unlikely - AND avoid detection from the F-22's passive sensors in the process - which is impossible. If they try to target the F-22 they have to go active, meaning they'll be visible to all allied aircraft in the area. If they stay passive and try to move in on the AWACS, it's a crap shoot, but given what we've seen of their design they'll most likely be picked up by the AWACS itself before they get close. I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario where they could get enough of the F-22's to expose themselves, AND have supporting aircraft close enough to take advantage of the situation. Except, of course, in the above-mentioned (and discarded) invade-mainland-China scenario, which isn't really worth discussing. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the people in charge of strategy / tactics are a bunch of drooling cretins.
Shh... the point is to get approval for F-XX uberstealth fighter project that will maintain the US air supremacy.
If you honestly believe that, you really haven't been paying attention. I'd wager a couple months pay that the F-22 and the F-35 will be the last major fighter projects for the US. Going forward, it'll all be UAV's. It's going to be quite a while before the US is ready to invest fistfuls of money in a new project - not because they're trying to be fiscally responsible but simply because, at this point, the important thing is R&D. Investing in a new multi-billion-dollar project to deliver an actual product would be pointless.
You sure are pulling a lot of numbers out of your ass....
F-22, being an actual air superiority fighter however does, and would have to actually fire it up to engage enemy fighters stealthy enough to disallow passive guidance. This makes it vulnerable to ground-based interception as well as air based one.
Except the F-22 has the ability to share sensor data with other aircraft. So you can send one F-22 way forward, hit the enemy with your active radar, then have the 10 F-22's behind it light up the bad guys with missiles without needing to operate any of their own sensors. That tech alone gives it a massive advantage over anything else in the skies today. Add to that the fact that China has no missiles capable of being used at ranges available to the F-22, and you're left with the conclusion that even if the Chinese have somehow managed to develop an aircraft with decent radar and stealth characteristics similar to the F-22, they'd still be heavily outmatched in any encounter.
They may have copied some technology in materials. The paint [english.blic.rs] on the F-117 appears to be most prized secret.
Eh, it's no big deal. Given the quality of their manufacturing process, all the Chinese pilots will get lead poisoning before they even get in a dogfight.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, whenever someone calls you an idiot, that's because they're being defensive. After all, your mommy told you that you're a really special kid! And your sunday school teacher was very impressed with that presentation you gave, proving that the earth is 6,000 years old. Clearly it's all those scienticians and edumacated intemalectuals who are teh dumb, not you!
Why is there always some moron who has to chime in with the "DUH, U MUST KARE 'COS YER TALKING!!11!1" bullshit?
If that's your response, then you don't understand what I'm saying, and you don't understand what's being discussed. And you fail at basic logic, anyway.
Now, the fact that they cant explain it doesn't exactly lend any credibility to the story. If I invented cold fusion, irregardless if I could explain it or not, I would have every scientist I could find come look at it.
Eh. Personally, I'd have James Randi come take a look. That million-dollar-prize would eliminate the need to go looking for funding, and the publicity generated by winning it would be better than any friggin' TV commercials. I'd be a billionaire by the end of the week.
It doesn't orbit, and it doesn't "get energy". You know how you middle-school teachers showed you that picture of an atom that looks sorta like a little solar-system? Yeah, well they lied to you. Throw all that out the window, and go take a university course on particle physics.
I would presume that most governments would maintain similar ability to commandeer any technology that could be considered of national security interest, and limitless, virtually free energy would certainly come under that heading.
I don't see how. "Limitless virtually free" energy doesn't have any national security implications unless it's also really easy to make, AND really easy to weaponize, a-la the Outer Limits episode with the "cold fusion bomb".
you're an idiot.
I would have gone with "lunatic".
Right, because you're going to convert water into steam with a refrigerator.
You're right, it's not entrapment ... on the other hand, if the owner of a particular work (or their representative) goes on a public site and says "hey guys, download this!", how does it make sense to sue people who download it? In this case, the content is being distributed by those who have the right to do so, ergo no laws are being broken, right?
In fact, I would think most people agree that apart from the one file you found, if you consider all of the rest, some very large percentage is either fake or useless, crap, or is not downloadable.
Sure, and 90% of all e-mail is spam. I'm surprised that this would surprise anyone :) Sturgeon's Law has been with us since 1958 - you figure people would have gotten used to it by now.
Well, I've never been, so it would be hard for me to go back. However, I'm sure that someone will go there within the next decade or two. Whether they'll be American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian .... that's an open question.
And the likelihood of any given person dying at the hands of a Pope-sponsored jihad? Certainly lower than your chances of dying to terrorism.
At the moment, yes. You sure you read what I wrote?
So why is it okay to live in fear of the Pope, but foolish to live in fear of dying to terrorism?
I think both are equally foolish. I don't fear the pope or the mullahs - I just want to see them destroyed, and their evil idologies wiped from the mind of man.
There are numerous self-styled smart dudes here who would be hasten to point out that many of our anti-terror measures are pointless, and we're wasting money and time on counteracting a threat that, on a societal scale, is fairly minor. But the fact that the Pope *could* influence a handful of Catholics if he declared a jihad is somehow something to be worried about?
Something to consider, and to mitigate before it becomes a problem. If that's what you mean by "worry", then yes. If, on the other hand, you mean something along the lines of "invade the Vatican", then no.
That is because you can disagree with someone and still listen to what they are saying and perhaps agree with other points.
It's not a question of disagreement, though. I can disagree with Bush and I can disagree with Obama, and I can look at parts of what they say and acknowledge that they make a good point, sure. But I don't care what L. Ron Hubbard says, and I don't care what Ahmadinejad says, nor do I care what the Iranian mullahs, Kim Jong Il, or the pope have to say. All of the above-mentioned individuals long ago gave up any right to be taken seriously on any subject, and I'd much rather see them deposed and imprisoned than sit and listen to their diatribes. I don't care if they have a good idea about how to build high-quality solar pannels for the poor using feces and industrial waste; I don't want to hear about it because the source truly has poisoned the information.
It's the old question of whether it's moral to use research that was gathered through the torture of prisoners in concentration camps during WW2. Either you think that it is, or you think that it isn't. It has noting to do with disagreement, and everything to do with how we define our individual morali
Actually, if the Pope said that in 2011, he would be roundly ignored, other than to have a bunch of Catholics around the world go, "Um.... no?"
If you believe that, I've got some nice Vatican-side property to sell ya ...
You know, most muslims don't go around killing infidels either, but it only takes 0.1% of that population to cause some serious problems. If you think that a proclamation of Jihad from the Vatican wouldn't motivate thousands of lunatics to go out and murder, rape, and pillage, you're a fool.
And if the Catholic Church was a vast nation state or empire where its leadership had considerable political power, I'd be worried. As it is, no one is being forced to be a Catholic, so I don't care all that much.
Naw, ya don't have ta bee a Cat-o-lick, see? By da way, dat sure is a nice soul ya gots there. Be a shame if something were ta ... "happen" to it .. kapiche?
I agree with you for the most part ... but, honestly, do you really think that either Obama or Bush writes his own speeches? The content of their speeches has nothing to do with their intelligence - it says more about the intelligence of their speech-writers, and their target demographic.
That attitude gave us Bush
No, the lack of that attitude gave you Bush, Bush Jr., and Bush Jr. Jr. aka "Obama".
Dammit ... why do all the really great trolls awlways come out right after I've used up my last mod point?
So what happens when the cyber police force gets influenced by these evil social networks? Will there be a cyber police police?
Loyalty tests and executions; the tried-and-true method.
Don't you just love the excuses? Imagine if in the 60's everyone was saying "go to the moon? That's impossible!"
It would have taken a couple decades longer, been safer, gotten better value for the money, and maybe resulted in a space program which actually established a base there instead of just collecting rocks?
Yeah, that would have sucked ...
If that list took bandwidth throttling and monthly transfer caps into account, Canada and Australia would be FAR lower. Not to mention that - at least in Canada - the "rated speed" is rarely the actual speed, unless you live in the middle of a major city. Even in the suburbs you often see problems with 7mbps connections having to be "downgraded" to 4mbps or lower, just to stop them from crapping out because of the poor line quality. They don't downgrade your bill, though.
Considering the kind of service we get here, it always makes me smile when Americans complain about their connection speeds.
Well, yeah, I was going to mention that, but didn't really see the need to pile on any more. Anyway, depending on the situation, you might not want your AWACS operating that close, so the F-22 comes in rather handy as a way to extend your range.
Air superiority aircraft. When you're defensive, you don't have to have a lot of stealth ones. Just enough to force enemy stealth fighters to power up their own fire control radar. The numbers are real, and have been published by various credible defense journals, Jane's being one.
Ah, that makes more sense. Not sure why you think this would force anyone to "power up their own fire control radar", though. In simulated engagements F-22's have generally operated on passive sensors, even when engaged by an opposing force an order of magnitude larger than their own.
US is not expecting to field it's craft in the neutral or friendly, but hostile territory.
The US isn't planning on flying it's aircraft thousands of miles into enemy territory - most engagements are likely to take place over neutral territory or coastal areas. Do you honestly think that the US wants to invade mainland China?
This means that friendly guidance vs even low grade stealth is going to be non-existent, and enemy ground radar installations are functional and unsuppresed.
I don't see how that follows, even given your initial (flawed) premise.
The goal of chinese fighter is NOT to win toe-to-toe match vs F-22. It's goal is to push back US AWACS craft into ineffective range and force F-22s to fire up their own fire control radar or retreat due to lack of targeting data when achieving it's main task of winning air superiority.
Sure. Good luck with that. Before you can push back the AWACS, you have to get through the F-22's, F-35's, and assorted other aircraft being fielded. This is a bit like saying "the goal of our infantry is to push back their artillery". Far easier said than done.
And for this, chinese don't need 2000 air superiority aircraft. They need a small percentage of stealth air superiority fighters and a large conventional air superiority force which will move in the moment F-22's stealth is compromised.
A "small percentage of stealth aircraft" isn't likely to compromise anything. They'd have to detect the F-22 - which seems highly unlikely - AND avoid detection from the F-22's passive sensors in the process - which is impossible. If they try to target the F-22 they have to go active, meaning they'll be visible to all allied aircraft in the area. If they stay passive and try to move in on the AWACS, it's a crap shoot, but given what we've seen of their design they'll most likely be picked up by the AWACS itself before they get close. I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario where they could get enough of the F-22's to expose themselves, AND have supporting aircraft close enough to take advantage of the situation. Except, of course, in the above-mentioned (and discarded) invade-mainland-China scenario, which isn't really worth discussing. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the people in charge of strategy / tactics are a bunch of drooling cretins.
Shh... the point is to get approval for F-XX uberstealth fighter project that will maintain the US air supremacy.
If you honestly believe that, you really haven't been paying attention. I'd wager a couple months pay that the F-22 and the F-35 will be the last major fighter projects for the US. Going forward, it'll all be UAV's. It's going to be quite a while before the US is ready to invest fistfuls of money in a new project - not because they're trying to be fiscally responsible but simply because, at this point, the important thing is R&D. Investing in a new multi-billion-dollar project to deliver an actual product would be pointless.
China can field 2,000 stealth aircraft?
You sure are pulling a lot of numbers out of your ass ....
F-22, being an actual air superiority fighter however does, and would have to actually fire it up to engage enemy fighters stealthy enough to disallow passive guidance. This makes it vulnerable to ground-based interception as well as air based one.
Except the F-22 has the ability to share sensor data with other aircraft. So you can send one F-22 way forward, hit the enemy with your active radar, then have the 10 F-22's behind it light up the bad guys with missiles without needing to operate any of their own sensors. That tech alone gives it a massive advantage over anything else in the skies today. Add to that the fact that China has no missiles capable of being used at ranges available to the F-22, and you're left with the conclusion that even if the Chinese have somehow managed to develop an aircraft with decent radar and stealth characteristics similar to the F-22, they'd still be heavily outmatched in any encounter.
They may have copied some technology in materials. The paint [english.blic.rs] on the F-117 appears to be most prized secret.
Eh, it's no big deal. Given the quality of their manufacturing process, all the Chinese pilots will get lead poisoning before they even get in a dogfight.