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.

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. :)

We've had that technology for decades now; it's not new or impressive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The fact is that the TRAIN accelerated; we do not know if this was a deliberate action on the part of the engineer, a medical event that happened to him, failure of the human-machine interface, or really anything just yet. You can't meet a preponderance of the evidence standard against him with what we current know, never mind the reasonable doubt standard needed for a criminal conviction. Why the rush to judgment?

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.

I moved nothing. Don't blame me if you don't understand the difference between infrastructure spending and subsidizes.

Amtrak can't survive outside of the Northeast corridor without regular cash infusions. Name an airline whose business model is dependent on recurring cash infusions from the Government.

Airlines don't get money deposited into their general fund from the United States Treasury. They take advantage of infrastructure spending, i.e., runways and air traffic control, but that's the same for every transportation system. I have little objection to the Feds paying for railways, roads, or runways. I have a serious objection to them giving Amtrak money to stay in business in markets where it could not survive on its own.

And that's a perfectly valid argument. The "We must do something!" crowd won't accept that, but it's valid nonetheless. It's like the argument that we need to equip every at-grade crossing in the country with barriers arms no matter how rural the road or infrequent the train traffic. It costs nearly a million dollars per crossing to do that and that money is wasted at certain at-grade crossings.

Newsflash: There's risk in life. Even without PTC traveling by train is still significantly safer than traveling by car. Where are the billions of dollars in unfunded Federal mandates to address the tens of thousands that die on the roadways every year?

You don't know that. If the train accelerated out of control because the engineer had a medical event then PTC/ATC would have prevented the crash. If it accelerated out of control because the throttle control system and/or brakes failed then PTC/ATC would not have mattered a whit.

Until we actually know both the how and the why all of these arguments are moot. That's my main point. This is a rush to judgment that's being driven by two factors: The 24 hour cable news cycle (how many different ways can we say, "We don't know anything new yet?") and political interests seeking to advance their cause while the public is paying attention to them.

A locked cockpit door could have prevented 9/11. Why the rush to create TSA? Because politicians must be seen to do something after a horrible tragedy. Saying, "C'est la vie" and treating us like grown ups would make too much fucking sense.