Like Enron? Or Arthur Anderson?

Odd then that they already use Spinning missiles beacuse they help solve the re-entry problems

phallax ammo needs replenishing, lands somewhere perhaps in the costal town you are shooting over, and can't be run continuously. It cannot deal with non-lethal modes of attack (rubber dingy). it's very expensive. it has the problems of toxicity from DU. And most of all it's short range.

there are other uses for lasers that projectile weapons don't satisfy easily.
http://www.army.mil/article/82...

there a high peak power, low total energy, laser ionizes a trail from the laser to the target device. then you send a bolt of lightning down that air column, which continues to ionize it while it electrically destroys the target. This can be used to disable vehicles non-lethally from remote distances. It can even be used to destroy roadside IEDs.

Another use, in fact the one it was originally researched for in the 1990s, is discharging lighting storms. In the 1990s there were multiple outages of the internet and other coms systems with astonishing price tags, due to lightning strikes. These don't seem to be as much of a problem now, at least not making the news. But at the time it looked like our new electronic infrastructure would need protecting.

ships are the ideal laser platform due to their abundant power and cooling, as well as their weight carring capacity, sturdy rigid platform, limited storage space for ordinance. Moreover ships are a highvalue asset that in recent years have been denied access to coastlines (littoral) due to proliferation of cheap anti-ship weapons. so defeating those is important to the navy. the main drawback with lasers is you can't fire them over the horizon, and thus the longer range weapon will always bee needed as well.

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. But the drone situation changed everything. There wasn't a good way to deal with these, and the pinpoint accuracy of lasers combined with the low power requirements needed makes lasers the ideal weapon for this. Similarly, non-lethal weapons to fend off small craft boats are better solved by lasers than projectiles. Lasers are a great weapon for the navy since they have abundant power and cooling at hand. It means they can carry less explosives making their own vessels safer and reduces the logistics needed for re-supply.

What's remarkable to me is that in the 1970s the idea of a laser weapon seemed ludicrous since they deposited more energy into the laser than into the target, focusing through heated air was a problem, and simply rotating a large target (balistic missile) greatly increased the power needed to damage it. Now we have breakthroughs in laser diode efficieniency, and slow moving non-spinning targets with a low damage threshold

You've missed an important detail. They're not comparing the stock valuation to the assets alone. They're comparing the stock valuation to what the company would sell for if purchased. When you sell a company, you're also selling the "good will" and other value inertia things like brand familiarity, the value that will come from having the company in the future, etc.

How is Q different than the usual Price-to-Book ratio, which formally has the same english definition of the share price to the per-share Asset value of the company? The price-to-book value doesn't go below 1 usually because a leveraged buyout of the company could fund it self by selling off the pieces. The Q-value seems to define assets as replacement value which is unclear. Is replacement value to be taken as what the assets would trade for in their used shape, or what they would cost to buy new.

Agreed, some people in this thread seem to equate "immoral" with "annoying". Advertising is simply a glorified way of shouting "hey, look at this" for personal gain, annoying but harmless. False advertising is simply lying for personal gain and clearly immoral.

Somebody stole your willpower?

Please see my original post:

They're not going to work as cops ever again.

And they're not going to get hired as security guards in the U.S., either. Would you hire someone that you already knew, 100%, had violated someone's civil liberties so egregiously? Of course not: your shareholders would can you for hiring them. If you hire people you know are a discipline problem, you're just begging for a lawsuit when they fuck up again while working for you.

If you think the people who hire cops don't bother to check with previous employers and do Google searches on new applicants, you need your head examined. These two are done. They're not going to work as cops ever again.

then you don't know your history

So the fact that she actually did those things makes talking about them political? Or does pretending she didn't do them and talking around them make the conversation political? Hillary-centric submissions that wish away her behavior are the politicized ones.

"Fury Road" isn't a remake of any of the existing Mad Max films.

Also, you seem to forget (or maybe didn't realise) that "The Road Warrior"- i.e. the film known as "Mad Max 2" outside North America!- wasn't the original either. Granted, the name change (which was apparently because the original "Mad Max" wasn't well known over there) obscures that, and to be fair, "Mad Max 2" *is* probably the closest to what people associate with the series.

If you watch the original "Mad Max", it's quite obviously a much lower budget (*) (and smaller-scale) exploitation film- around a tenth of the budget of Mad Max 2- and IIRC *was* more character based. For someone who had seen the sequel first, I suspect that it might almost come across as a prequel or set-up for its better known follow-up. From what I remember, the basic elements associated with the later films *are* in place, but don't come together until surprisingly late in the film.

Something like "The Road Warrior" *couldn't* have been done on the budget of the (actual) original. That said, the budget of "Fury Road"- at a supposed US$150m is still *way* higher than even the Hollywood-bloated "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (supposedly US$12m in 1985, which would be around $27m today)!

(*) Something that Wikipedia confirms; the second film was apparently AU $4.5m, whereas the original was around $400,000!

And if I don't? If I find it's a far simpler business model to just let everyone wander up, and use (or ignore) web content without having to handle account management and transaction fees (and fraud, etc) per visitor, and just deal instead with a much smaller universe of ad agencies to fund the site ... so? All you have to do is walk away. You don't have to see it. You don't have to care about it, and you don't have to wish that it would die. You can just stick with the web sites you prefer. Still not clear on what your problem is with that.