Apparently the SeaRAM system from Raytheon specifically is able to stop the Sunburn.
I miss the XP days when the OS didn't change that much. I'm having to fix programs and scripts and various registry hacks every time a new OS is released. It's fucking annoying.
I'm still mostly using windows 7 on most systems. Windows 8 is something I've only seen on the occasional poor bastard that had it installed OEM.
At this point I've grown superstitious about MS operating system releases. So 8 was automatically unacceptable because 7 was acceptable. The tablet served little more as justification for my preexisting bias based merely on the OS number.
And really... I mostly didn't want to change because 7 was already set up and I already understood its nonsense and I saw no real benefit to 8 that I cared about.
As to... 9 which apparently never happened despite it obviously being superior because it was going to have an odd number.... we're now doing 10? I don't know anything about 10. I've avoided it.
Half of me thinks it is probably decent because 8 was apparently shit. The other half of me notes that it has an even number and is therefore deeply suspect.
That's literally the depth of my thinking at this point.
What I'd like out of MS is a real separation between the operating system and the GUI. The same way we have seperation between browsers and the Operating system. I'd like to see more people issuing divergent and customizable GUIs. Because a lot of the issues with windows is just the GUI.
I've played with programs to mess with the GUI since LightStep and I think there is a real place for more diversity in GUIs. One thing that I'd like to see more people play with is the idea of customizing the GUI for use. You see this with kiosks.... ATMs (custom GUI ontop of windows XP usually).... etc. But I think it has value in the corporate world where users are using the same four programs every time... or setting things up for older relatives that only do webpages and email.
... The military obviously isn't used to autonomous weapons systems. But I would suspect that relatively quickly they would build in a few basic security features.
1. The IFF would expire and not merely be accepted back into the fold after the bot disappeared for days.
2. Even if it does get into the base the units shouldn't be autonomous inside the base. So them moving around without escort shouldn't happen.
3. Direct bot to bot infections should be possible. They should require a secure firewalled interlocutor that is controlled by a human being to initiate the transfer of executable code, firmware updates, etc.
4. Assuming the killbots go nuts in your base... it goes without saying that they shouldn't be able to refuel, recharge, or rearm autonomously. By all means, have them go to point X to get Y. But they should require some affirmative assistance from a human being to initiate the restoration of any resource. That might mean a human opens a port, open a hatch, flips a power switch... something. The system can be highly automated but it shouldn't be completely automated. That way even if they go amok they'll run out of juice at some point and then they can get crated up and sent back to the clockwork womb to be "fixed".
The nature of these things should be controlled. You don't want them entirely autonomous. You want them to have a certain nature to them such that worst case you can avoid them.
Human updated zones of operation is one thing you could think about. You give them a set of coordinates and you tell them to do bad things to the enemy in that area. They shouldn't stray from it until their mission duration expires.
Oh look, an AC troll/sockpuppet making a shitty post about someone that actually logs in... and what is this? He's criticizing someone else's record? Does he know that that is unbe-fucking-lievably hypocritical given that he's giving no one else an ability to examine his own record?
Surely he must know that... right?
Well, it's probably not important since we can likely assume that all he does is shit post about other people or do various trollish sockpuppity things on the forums.
What's so fucking funny about you retards is that you don't seem to get that every time you shit post me as an AC at this point you merely validate my sig. I recongize you half the time as your named persona. You'll do stupid shit like AC shit post me in some forgotten thread where it is just me and some other douchbag going back and forth. Not realizing that there is no one reading that crap at that point but the other guy and therefore... I know who you fucking are in that case.
Cowards, liars, and shitheads.
In the words of Bill Hicks:
You're posting as AC... you're owed considerably less than someone that actually logs in.
Login if you want to talk about it. Don't and keep trolling.
... what do you people think accelerated these programs and why do you think the Navy is the first to deploy them?
Russia and China started saying "ha ha, your carrier groups are powerless before our anti ship missiles... Tee hee!"
And that got some Admirals worried so they went over to the various companies that build these things like Stark Labs and Luthor's Starlabs etc... and they said "I want something that kills hypersonic missiles so my carriers don't get scragged!"... and here you go.
Hypersonic missiles nullified. Potentially anyway... Maybe they cover the missiles in reflectors or space shuttle like heat tiles or something. Its going to go back and forth.
They're going to pitch the weapon as a panacea because they always do that. But you have to consider why they specifically got interested in this... Its ICBMs and hyper sonic missiles that are worrying them.
The US actually likes to start a war with someone else blowing up one of our ships. Remember the Maine and all that. I mean... read a book.
Only post what you're okay with people seeing and if you're posting something you don't want seen... then work under false names.
My social networking nonsense is compartmentalized. My names never link back to a person unless I want them to... and then I make a point of not doing anything on line with those identities that will attract controversy.
""Afghanistan there's possibly in the range of 250K deaths, and a lot of the country is still under Taliban rule.""
I'm not seeing a problem.
""The mid-2000 NATO expansion pissed off the Russians and is likely responsible for Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.""
This presupposes that the Russian empire would not seek to restore past territory at some point in the future.
""The Libya intervention brought about a civil war.""
That war was predominantly desired by the Europeans and not the Americans. Our assistance was invoked by the French etc because they lack the logistics to project power even so far as north africa without our support.
I'm not sure what you're laying at our feet here. What did you want the US to do?
""The US overthrew the moderate democratic rulers in Iran to install a dictator (which led to the Iranian revolution).""
Various things that happened in the cold war cannot be discussed without putting them in the context of the cold war. its like talking about a single battle in a war and not appreciating that even if your forces get wiped out on some seemingly meaningless hill somewhere it had strategic significance that made it worthwhile to do such a thing.
""The US supported dictators over South America, supplied rebel groups and taught them how to torture.""
Again, cold war. And we did not teach them how to torture. Any moron can cause another person pain. If we taught them anything it was how to get something useful out of it.
""The US is currently supporting dictators in the Middle East.""
And the alternative to supporting friendly and largely rational dictators that are prepared to ally with us is what? What is more, most of those alliances go back to the cold war and some even to the old british empire. I'm not sure you appreciate the apple carts you suggesting we over turn there.
""Except in South America and the Middle East where the US supported the people who raped their neighbours""
Actually it doesn't matter which side you take in either of those places. They all want to fuck each other over. All you're really blaming us for there is taking any sides at all.
We had to do that for the cold war. Since... we've taken a much less active hand in it... and to the extent we're involved in the middle east at all at this point it is mostly to keep Israel from getting genocided. Something quite a few people would love to see happen.
Read the rhetoric coming out of people that are highly critical of US middle east policy and it often gets anti Semitic. When it comes from middle easterners it is guaranteed to get anti Semitic but shockingly you'll see that out of French and English people as well. Its kind of sad.
""The lesson there is people are blind to their own misdeeds.""
As to this... sure... but this is a product ultimately of people having different perspectives. And the reality is that ours is a more general one in greater command of more information than is yours.
Keep in mind, the US has strategic responsibilities all over the world. You can't even begin to comprehend the tigers we have by the tail.
We could of course let go... but then the tiger would eat someone. And often as not that would not be us. That would be someone like you.
""Generally not in my experience. They want the US to be more cooperative and less dictorial with its influence. Drone strikes are a good example, you kill one terrorist and create five others.""
As to your experience... I'll refer you to your line about people not understanding their own misdeeds. You don't really know why you're saying things sometimes. You don't see the layers of influence and supposition in it all.
As to drone strikes... its a weapon and a tool. No more capable of creating a terrorist than a pistol shot to the back of someone's head. They're not going away. Get use to them.
As to the notion that killing one terrorist leads to 5 more. Not in our experience. They tend to come from places that have no family connection to the person being killed. The reason person X becomes a terrorist is almost never because we killed his friend or his brother or something. Typically they're radicalized somewhere and they would have come or done something no matter what because they were radicalized.
We've found if anything that if we kill a lot of them that things calm down. We have to keep killing them but that is because they're being bred in places like Saudi Arabia and Jordan where they pump out these fucks with some regularity. A fair number of the terrorists we were dealing with in Afghanistan were coming from places like that. And the money and funding for this sort of stuff invariably comes from places like that.
Here you can say "then why are you allies of country X or Y"... what are our options? Not be their allies? What does that accomplish? We can keep them close this way... their governments will help us to some extent to deal with their own people... that sort of thing.
Its often as not a weighing of evils. This insistence on only doing what is ideal presupposes that the ideal is even an option.
if you're on a deserted island the ideal is to get rescued by a cruise ship and get put up in luxury accommodations all the way back to civilization.
That isn't always an option. Occasionally you have to spend 10 years alone on an island figuring out how to survive with nothing to eat but what you can find on or near the island.
That's reality. The ideal is nice if you can find it. Often it isn't there to be found in the first place.
""Actually you did mostly talk to them. The US came very late to both world wars. (though you did pretty much all the fighting against the Japanese).
But with Iran you engaged in the talk and it worked, you get a less hostile Iran with a lower chance of Nukes, the alternative was likely a Middle Eastern North Korea.""
Then by this argument we always do that and always have. Every US military action has been proceeded by an exchange of words from the American revolution to Iraq.
If you feel the talking was insufficient that needs to be defined in terms that don't just boil down to "feelings". Because opinions and feelings offered on political and strategic matters are really just a fig leaf for wanting to express an opinion without having enough facts to offer up better reasons for it besides... "fee fees"... On strategic matters, feelings are irrelevant.
As to our talks with Iran working... that has yet to be seen. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon as many believe they will then it is hard to explain the full depth of the strategic clusterfuck that will be unleashed on the First World. A complete realignment of US and thus First World military and strategic power will happen and to a certain extent the first world alliance as you know it will die.
As a canadian this won't effect you much. You're so deep under our shells of protection that you'll never come out from it. But the Europeans, Middle easterners, and Asians will suffer the full force of the old curse that wishes "interesting times" on them.
""Canada, and I don't claim it's a secret agenda, it's just an observation that the US is a very bossy and aggressive country and diplomacy looks a lot like a demands for capitulation.""
As to the Canadian impression that the US is bossy... feelings... explain this in terms that are relevant.
""And being a Canadian we asked politely and got our freedom without any bloodshed
Did you try that in the 1770s? Don't be obtuse. What is more, the British gave you your independence in a time when they had no choice but to do that. The British Empire is a thing of the past. They didn't adapt to changing circumstances and it cost them. They got dragged through the meat grinder twice and it destroyed them.
The United States watched it happen. And unlike the Canadians we have people taught to think strategically. Not short term. But in terms of generations... we war game the next world war all the time. Every new change in the strategic map... every new technology... every shift in the economic and industrial balance and we recalculate.
What many in the first world do not understand is that there is a lot on the shoulders of America. We are responsible for maintaining the global status quo. We have enemies everywhere... even our allies undermine us out of ignorance, greed, and malice. There is no peace. There is only putting off the next great war. The "big one". And it comes.
This is why the US is so obsessed with nuclear containment. Game theory. What happens when the number of powers with nuclear weapons expands? Iran getting weapons means Saudi Arabia must have them, Egypt must have them, Israel will openly declare that they have them... and that could easily spiral out from that point.
Now consider what that does to US strategic policy? A nuclear war becomes almost inevitable in this scenario simply because there are too many irresponsible powers with these weapons.
How do you win a nuclear war? The US is trying to develop the means to do just that. All our high level resources are bent on that goal. We know the war is coming and when it does we want to be ready for it. To annihilate the aggressors with extreme prejudice and suffer minor if any damage to ourselves or to the rest of the first world.
This statement sounds incomprehensible to most people without this education or background. Very few people get this... Some people in Russia get it, some people in the US get it, a few in the UK... but most of them are in the US. And we do obsesses over it in strategic policy because it is the heart and core of our policy.
To delay WW3 as long as possible and when it comes... to survive it at the very least... ideally to win... ideally to see our allies survive as well.
The problem is that if there is a collapse in nuclear containment before we're ready, then game theory suggests that we must pull back... hang all our allies out to dry... use everyone as a meat shield
That's what people are fucking with when they let Iran get nukes. I'm not so worried about the US getting hurt by Iran etc. We're very safe.
Everyone else might get fucked raw however. The Israelis are increasingly likely to be genocided. The Eastern Europeans could be pulled back into the Russian Empire. East Asia could fall under Chinese domination or there could be a war between china and Japan.
This assumption everyone has that things will remain peaceful or that the days of war are done is little more than taking for granted the protection and security provided by the United States. People think this stability we enjoy just happens. It does not. It is a pattern we impose upon the world. You might not enjoy it always... but the alternative to that is an old chaos most don't even think is real anymore.
There are generational shifts coming as well. My grand fathers went to war in Europe out of a sense of horror and fear. Our fathers held the line out of a sense of duty and honor. My generation feels no such thing for the various fairweather friends around the world that will in one breath call us unspeakable things and then demand we sacrifice for them.
I feel no fear, horror, obligation, or honor debt to protect these people. It is expensive to protect them... in blood and treasure. And if that was appreciated then I could possibly see extending something to them. But it isn't. And so my general attitude is to pull back. Which the strategic game theory says we must if nuclear containment fails... and it probably will in the near future.
World War 3 is coming, Bub. And the watched what happened to the UK when it tried to stop the wheels from coming off. We're not going to make the same mistake. We'll pull back. This won't matter for Canada. You're so deep in our sphere that it will never matter. But the rest of the first world is another matter.
Login and we'll continue. Don't and you've already gotten more from me than you were owed.
Okay, so in response to this post then:
""Nah, the vast majority is not happy with the US because it fails to uphold its own principles of freedom. That one guy from Serbia, apparently? Serbia has, from wiki, only about 7 million people. There's probably more Americans unhappy with the US than there are people living in Serbia in total.
Of course, not everyone in a nation hates the US. Especially in countries like China or Russia, where it's mostly the government and ruling elites who hate the US, not the common folk who trade with and buy products from America (sanctions notwithstanding)
So the people who hate the US for "stopping them from raping their neighbors" are a minority. They just tend to be loud so you might think there's a lot more of them. Furthermore, those people tend to hate everyone in the "Western" world as well, so there goes the other reason of envy/shame as well.
Most people who are unhappy with the US are actually people in the developed world. They are unhappy because going around using military might to get your way goes against the principles of freedom which the US itself claims to be founded upon. Look at the word you use on what happens after you achieve military victory: you dictate the terms. Putting a gun and ordering someone to play nice may be effective, but it ain't freedom and democracy you're promoting.
You're advocating security ("status quo" as you call it) over liberty.""
As to people that hate the US for stopping them from raping their neighbors, it isn't as small as you think. Most of the middle east hate is just that and nothing more. The Russians hate us for similar reasons. I can go through a laundry list of various countries. And on the internet these people are not properly attributed so you don't know who is saying what or why. So you can't isolate for example people that say X because they were stopped from genociding their neighbors from Y who feel that way for other reasons.
As to being loud, well we're talking about people that are being loud. So if X is being loud and the issue is people complaining about something then obviously X is going to make up a disproportionate amount of the complaints.
As to gaining our "way" by using military force... first that doesn't go against our principles or we'd have talked to the Imperial Japanese and Nazis instead of bombing them into submission.
Furthermore, our "way" needs to be defined because there is this implication that we have some sort of secret or exclusive agenda that only profits us when really it is in support of the entire first world as defined by the original paradigm... aka our allies. This would include the entire EU, our middle eastern allies, our asian allies, our african allies, and our American allies. Our way is in the service of that interest which likely includes you. I don't know what country you're from but it is probably a first world country.
As to putting a gun against someone's head being anti democratic... our democracy didn't happen because we asked the British nicely to let us form a republic. We violently rebelled. This notion you're pushing that violence is inherently bad is simplistic and erroneous.
If people are being violent then often the only effective response is violence.
As the man said... war is merely politics by other means.
I often restate the same thing in different ways to make it harder for people to strawman me actually. You find this in law as well. A thing will be said over and over in different ways so it is very hard for someone to just grab one sentence take it out of context and say "well clearly it means this".
Also something that has to be understood is that there are a lot of people that are just ignorant. Going into some detail helps them. If you just vaguely reference your point you've not given them a chance to learn. You're also very prone to make non-falisfiable statements which are inherently illogical.
So you make an unqualified insult, I call you on it... you make no effort to back up your statement... then you comment again with another unqualified insult?
And this time you suggest I'm not an adult when you're the one running around trolling ME by joining topics I'm commenting in and basically just throwing baseless insults at me?
Who the fuck do you think you are? You think you get to judge if I'm an adult? You're the idiot just sitting there making dumb insults. That's your entire contribution to this topic.
The hydro dams are not pumped storage dams, you brainless AC fuckwit.
They are CONVENTIONAL hydro electric dams. A great many of them were built a long time ago and have no conception of renewables in their design specs. They wrere designed to be the primary power supply in their respective areas. So they not only don't pulse the power but they have many turbines which allows them cut back the capacity of the dam marginally while doing maintenance. That is... they don't even shut down when they're getting fixed unless the problem is fucking horrible.
They are designed to pump out a consistent and reliable amount of power all the time.
Again... and for the last time... some pinhead did as you suggested and started pulsing water through the dams in California. They broke.
No no no... They broke.
And here you'll say "but if you just upgraded them to whatever then"... and here you've yet again shown another hidden cost in this stupid campaign.
Just build some nuclear reactors. They can handle the full weight of the coal power plants relatively quickly and much more cheaply than the alternative.
The Green stuff makes sense ON houses directly as a means to reduce consumption. It has very little value as actual grid linked power plants. Everything else... Nuclear.
We haven't built a nuke plant since the 70s... we've closed quite a few... and despite that the nukes we have are providing about 22~25 percent of the national grid. 45 percent of the grid is coal... and perhaps another 15~20 percent are other fossil fuels. You're not replacing that in our life times without going hard nuclear. And that is something that could very easily be the ideal power source for the world for thousands of years. Renewable? No... neither is the sun. But the fissionables will last a long long time.
Login if you want to debate the issue. Or I'll just call this done.
First, the reduction in healthcare costs is just more playing with statistics. What Americans actually pay for healthcare has if anything gone up.
The government playing with stats to make themselves look better is nothing new. They do that with everything.
As to small businesses and jobs... the ACA actually encourages businesses to only hire part time labor... or at least do that as much as possible because it is a loophole in most of the annoying regulations. This was widely reported and pretending it didn't happen is not intellectually sustainable.
As to fox, I get no news from fox what so ever. And I frankly find it to be nothing more than ad hominem for little shits like you to enter a discussion, drop a lot of talking points, and then say the opposition is wrong because of the evil fox news.
lets look at your sources...
Four links from the Daily Kos which is about as valid as me citing Breitbart. The fact that you can without irony accuse me of only getting my news from fox and then you cite all your information from the daily fucking kos is fucking hilarious.
And your final example, the Los Angeles Times? Hardly an impartial source. I live in Los Angeles. I know that paper very well. It is frequently prone to advocacy.
Here's the thing, your sources were so fucking biased that I could cite literally anything at this point and you'd be unable to claim the source was biased without immediately becoming guilty of hypocrisy. You just lost any ability to do that.
Now... with that understanding... unless you want to retract all your citations... I will respond. I first just want your confirmation either that I can cite anything because you've surrendered any claim to my sources being biased in this discussion... or you need to pull those two sources and the 5 associated links back.
Your choice. I'll wait for you to make it.