After all, the government is corrupt as hell and AT&T... Well, we don't need to rehash that.

Maybe if there was something, so sort of code or something. Some specification for proper and honest behaviour that would forbid dishonest or harmful actions... I wonder what we could call them?

The only solution when something has decayed to this point is to start over. It's time to reboot by using politicians and corrupt bureaucrats as landfill.

Man, you sure used a hell of a lot of bytes convincing me that the gov't is a failed experiment. I wouldn't say anything, but you're preaching to the choir.

Politicians, lawyers, marketers, all are good for little more than landfill.

It's also fucked up that so many people ignore the enormous problems that still exist for many people trying to register and use the program. Obamacare may have brought some healthcare to many people, but it's going to crash faster than social security.

Shit would work better if medical providers would just charge EVERYONE the same fucking amount that the insurance companies have negotiated. When a person's hospital bill runs $22000 and the insurance company's discount runs their payout to only $3500, there's a fucking problem. If the provider's didn't inflate their charges, then maybe regular people might be able to afford to pay on their own.

If the expense of coverage is higher than a person would pay out of pocket if everyone got the discount, then how the fuck is it helping the situation?

IMHO, they should concentrate their efforts on fixing the fucked up situation with obamacare before haring off on another projects.

Adding another half-working POS project to the mix won't help anyone except the politicians getting bribes to award contracts and the slimy bastards touting their half-assed programming/db/integration skills as being top end.

"Fucking waste of money"

I understand the motivation behind this, but the proliferation of cheap chips and the rise of the kitchen table chip hacker is putting paid to any particular organization attempting to control what happens to chips that anyone can buy damned near anywhere. They might find and close some small shops, but ultimately, I believe that they are only participating an expensive form of mental masturbation.

There are millions and millions of teens and 20-somethings creating demand for this item. The SK gov't is surely lacking in aggregate mental power if they have concluded that it would be possible to stop the production of the sticks in Korea, or anywhere else for that matter, or to stop their import in shirt pockets and purses, let alone bulk imports from container ships.

Korea will have less success stopping selfie sticks than any country has ever had at stopping people from smoking a weed that grows _everywhere_ except the arctic tundra and Antarctica.

Korea: Be rational, spend the money on something useful, not a meaningless crusade.

Selfie-Sticks==Drugs for narcissistic kids.

Man, I wish I had your optimism. Perhaps I'm becoming more pessimistic as I age.

Bullshit.

Google wants complete and utter control of the browser and your internet usage.

Fuck the googletron.

What horsecrap.

This is just as likely to happen as all those futuristic designs that graced the pages of popular mechanics and mechanics illustrated 50 years ago.

If 36.0a1 is any indication of what to expect in the future, we should all just switch to IE and burn in hell. It'll be a better experience and it won't hurt as much.

Very true. But there have been many times the US has had two thirds of the carriers deployed, and that was when we had had that "600-ship" Navy. While there are ten carriers active, Heck, the JFK, Ranger, Kitty Hawk, and the Indy could all be back in the game in less than a year if necessary. As always, the primary issue is manning.

I think long-range strategic aircraft will hold the day until sub-orbitals come into play. After that, the aircraft carrier will quickly lose relevance. And once laser/particle weapons live in those sub-orbitals, carriers and long-range aircraft will both become irrelevant.

But don't sell carriers them short just yet. It's not often done, but carrier aircraft can strike targets over a thousand miles away. Not with the strength they have hitting a nearby target, but enough to let the target know they've been seriously kissed. Deeply frenched, in fact. By something with a _really_ sharp tongue.

UAV's will extend the carrier's usefulness and lifespan, but I have no idea how far.

If I send clear text to the internet, it is because I don't give a damn who reads it.

However, when I wish my communications to remain private, I encrypt it myself before it ever leaves my local network.

If you don't care enough to encrypt things you wish to remain private, then you are the only one responsible for allowing _anyone_ to read your mail. Don't rely on some nebulous third party to provide _your_ protection against eavesdroppers. Take charge of your life dammit, and quite whining.

tl;dr: Encrypt it yourself and then it doesn't matter if the transport channel is encrypted or not. Stand up on your own and be responsible for yourself!

Well played!

Can't spend time on station? Seriously?

There is a reason that aircraft carriers are the first choice for applying force when long-term force is required.

I've spent six months at a time tooling around in the Arabian Sea. I know of at least one year-long cruise by the Nimitz where they spent about 5 days in-port (crew relief was the only reason they went off station). American aircraft carriers are refueled, rearmed, and resupplied by a massive fleet of auxiliary stores vessels capable of delivering anything, including an entire fighter (granted, I only saw the fighter thing happen once), fuel, munitions, stores, spares, and personnel. The only reason that an undamaged (combat or in-service events: fire/accident, collision, storm) carrier needs to be rotated off station is for crew relief. A carrier is quite capable of sailing for years at a stretch without docking. It's not practical, though, since the crew would be batshit crazy by then. But that's why we have plenty of them.

The actual operating expenses attributed to a fleet at sea is a moot. Those ships, crews, and aircraft would be sailing/flying somewhere, in any event. The additional expenses attributed to combat operations are identical no matter where the aircraft are based. Fuel to fly, munitions to deliver. Those would be present no matter the situation.

Day-long inter-continental missions (for one-offs or small-scale ops) are fine and actually better creating a nearby land base since that obviates the necessity of creating the required maintenance facilities (including the specialized (by aircraft type) maintenance equipment and supporting systems) as well as secure, sheltered bunkers for aircraft and facilities for crew and support people. Those are major expenditures. Modern aircraft require sophisticated electronics that aren't repaired by simply tossing the box on an electronics bench and poking around with meters and scopes. Many systems require multi-million dollar automated testing systems that utilize computers to perform the actual testing and troubleshooting (not all of it, just the long dull portion). In some cases, flight data computers, for example, complete manual testing could take weeks, while the CAT systems can complete the same testing during a single shift (or so). In addition to the electronics, there is the matter of support equipment for the mechanical systems (electrical, engines, hydraulic), ground support equipment, specialized stands and racks to handle engines/fuselage sections/wings.

And that doesn't even touch on the personnel aspects. Housing for crews, maintenance teams, medical, support staff.

In essence, setting up an new land facility as opposed to using a existing carrier or mounting an inter-continental strike is too expensive.

As shown by your reply, you don't actually understand mechanics of airstrikes or the application of tactical/strategic air power from sea-based platforms. There are quite a few long-service vets on Slashdot who won't hesitate to pounce on uninformed comments.

tl;dr: It's no simple or inexpensive task to support aircraft in the field. Aircraft carriers can loiter and prosecute an action for longer than you'd be willing to stay at sea cooped up, seeing the same couple dozen people 24/7. Aircraft carriers or inter-continental strikes are usually the best way to proceed unless you're gearing up for a very long, very large forward action (think invading another country, not a NATO action like Kosovo).

Come on, Lasrick, haven't you heard that aircraft carriers don't need "facilities" from which to launch bomb strikes? Or that the B2/B52/F117 aircraft are more than capable of flying from the US to any damned place in the world to drop a bomb? Mid-air refueling and all that....

If you want credibility, don't spout inanities.

You nailed it!