Comment Re:drones (Score 1) 185
I would find it more amusing to watch them plugged full of
I would find it more amusing to watch them plugged full of
The technology to keep a low powered laser designator aimed at a moving target is no different than the technology needed to keep a high powered laser weapon aimed at a moving target.
In WW2 we had analog computers that could aim guns at moving targets from moving platforms. This is actually a harder proposition than aiming a laser; bullets don't move at the speed of light and you've got to compute lead. They did it without electronic computers. There's nothing that's particularly impressive about keeping a laser on target in 2015.
Look at it this way, can, or should, the state be able to override a county's ability to limit a cities property tax?
In the United States? Absolutely. That's how our system is structured. The States retain all powers not specifically surrendered to the Federal Government, per the US Constitution. They are sovereign entities in their own right, not dependent on Washington for their power. Their political subdivisions are completely arbitrary creations, that can be created or destroyed at the whim of the State Legislature.
If push comes to shove, what happens if NC or TN simply dissolve the political subdivisions that are attempting to do this? Will the FCC also try and prevent that? Where would that authority come from?
It cannot deal with non-lethal modes of attack (rubber dingy)
If the guys in the dingy are trying to kill you why would you limit your response to the non-lethal? You can defend against that shit with something that's nearly as cheap as the laser, which has more than a century of proven effectiveness in combat.
We don't need to spend millions (billions?) of dollars on laser technology to deal with small boat attacks. Some people like to talk a big game about swarm attacks but there's no where to hide on the open ocean; going after any modern warship on the high seas in speedboats is a fast way to meet your creator without taking any of your enemies along for the ride.
A nice thick cloud of opaque smoke could do the trick.
How do you lay a nice thick cloud of opaque smoke at hypersonic reentry velocities?
There never was a mission for the navy to shoot down nuclear missiles. there may have been a mission to shoot down anti-ship missiles. But they already had the Phalax and it is probably as effective as laser would ever be for that mission.
Phalanx and other gun based CIWS are being depreciated in favor of missiles like the Rolling Airframe Missile. Guns can't deal as effectively with supersonic missiles and/or those that undertake terminal evasive maneuvers. They've also got a stopping power problem; breaking apart an incoming missile doesn't negate its kinetic energy and the inbound pieces retain the ability to do significant damage to modern warships even without a warhead detonation. The British lost at least one warship -- HMS Sheffield -- in the Falklands to a missile strike without warhead detonation. Mission kills are even easier; take out a few radar antennas (highly exposed targets that can not be armored or otherwise protected) and the ship is rendered combat ineffective.
But the drone situation changed everything.
Drones aren't new to naval warfare. A missile is essentially a drone with a different name. One might even argue that a kamikaze is the same thing, at least from the perspective of the target.
I'll add that maybe what is most impressive is not the laser power, but the control system required to keep the beam on a moving target at a mile away. The author seemed to miss that part of the technology.
We've had that technology for decades now; it's not new or impressive.
You have to admire the hypocracy of state legislators who argue for "state's rights", who don't care about "city and county rights" to roll out broadband to attract jobs and new people to their area.
Show me the part of the US Constitution that says the Feds can tell a State it can't regulate its political subdivisions. My State limits the annual property tax hike that can be imposed by Towns, Counties, and Cities. Can the Feds override that too? Can they compel a State to allow its political subdivisions to set up municipal garbage service where such service is privatized? Water service?
The FCC's ruling here was a bridge too far. It's entirely proper for States to define the boundaries of acceptable behaviors for their political subdivisions. And what's the big fucking deal anyway? These States are simply saying that their political subdivisions can't get into the internet business. They're not stopping you from setting up a co-op; if the State tries that you should be able to make a Federal case out of it, because (amongst other things) they're interfering with interstate commerce and your right of free association.
The NTSB says he's been cooperative, so I guess your theory is bogus. As far as "lawyering up," well, that might have something to do with people like you that have already tried, convicted, and sentenced him. Retaining counsel is not an admission of guilt in our system of jurisprudence.
I was thinking more inline with the Reichstag fire. Especially since both events were fabricated by those who sought to gain power (and no, for anyone who is thinking it, 9/11 was not done by the US government). While most of the prequel trilogy is laughable, the one line Natalie Portman says about liberty dying to thunderous applause is probably one of the stronger lines of all 3 movies.
It didn't exactly happen to "thunderous applause" in the real world. In the real world there were SA men in the Reichstag to intimidate those that weren't toeing the line and even with that intimidation the Enabling Act was a short run thing. It could have very easily been voted down. As it happened the Nazis had to make promises (which they later didn't honor, go figure) to the Centre Party in order to obtain their support. Without that support the Act wouldn't have passed.
Lucas' retelling of history is extremely simplistic, just like his love story and portrayal of warfare. Star Wars works best if you just turn your brain off and don't think very hard.
Emperor Palpatine could foresee almost everything, he does claim so a couple of times himself
Except the person he turned to the dark side because of his emotional attachments having an emotional reaction while watching his own flesh and blood slowly tortured to death.
I know it's huge in the EU to spout off about the Jedi/Sith foresight but it takes away a lot of Palpatine's awesomeness to think it was all canned and foreseen from the beginning, particularly in the prequel trilogy where he's one of the few (the only?) redeeming factors. And, incidentally, there's no possible way to justify the Ewoks (and Jar-Jar) as anything other than a naked ploy to sell toys to babies.
In the majority of cases where a married woman is killed it's her husband who did the killing. That doesn't mean we convict him absent evidence or an actual investigation.
No, he's right, this is almost assuredly a strict liability scenario, unless it can be proven that something outside the engineers control was to blame then he is negligent and will go to jail.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's really ironic that you have that signature but are essentially claiming he needs to prove his innocence rather than the other way around.
We don't know what happened and you're already putting him in handcuffs? Do you not understand what the phrase, "Rush to judgment" means?!
It will take months for the investigation to pan out. Of course, I realize that's beyond the attention span of most people.
Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!
