Posts by laird cummings 588 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2007
Seems rather practical. People will be so busy boggling at the strange attire and weapons that they're unlikely to get a decent look at the *real* people inside the hollywood suits.
And nunchuku, or flails, should be pretty effective in NYC, a city wherein the law-abiding citizens have been largely disarmed by a lengthy series of cowardly politicians.
Really now, use some thought.
Why not use real dogs? Lets see... Real dogs require training, the results of which are highly non-standard, based upon the trainer's skill, the dog’s aptitude, and a myriad of other factors. Then, there's the fact that dogs are thinking animals, and, even when well-trained, will not always do what you want, instead choosing to do what *they* want. Then you have simple failures to communicate - happens all the time, even when you have two humans talking face-to-face; anything that removes the ‘interpretation of directions’ issue from the question is a big 'plus' to reliability. Dogs require dedicated handlers, people whom might otherwise be pointing a rifle. The droids can be operated by anyone whom has been through a fairly straightforward orientation, meaning that *every* rifle-pointer is also a potential droid handler. Then there's the fact that when you're not using them, dogs still need to be fed and cared for, whilst the droid can be put in a crate and forgotten until next time. Dog grow old fairly fast, and need constant replacement, whilst the shelf life on the droids is presumably quite lengthy. An injured dog is out of action, but the droids can be repaired fairly close to the front line, and possibly even on the line itself, give some basic knowledge and the right spare parts - spares which might well be cannibalized off another droid. Can't swap limbs on wounded dogs... not in the field, anyway!
The lists of reasons go on and on. It requires almost zero critical thought to come up with valid reasons why this may be a practical idea; the list above came off the top of my head as fast as I could type. I'm quite certain I haven't hit all the advantages yet, either.
The point is to get the utility of a pack dog, with none of the draws-back of live animals.
If the match makes it to the ring, it's all Chuck, all the way. But a good BOFH would ensure things never got that far.
Decision: BFOH, by default, as Chuck was stuck in a lift over at his hotel...
BTW:
Roundhouse kick is a show-off move only used after you've put your opponent mostly out of the fight - IOW, the fact that Chuck got to use that move so many times, is that he was really good at destroying his opponents.
Hey, just because it was ridiculously easy, doesn't mean the guy shouldn't have been busted. When you're that clueless, you *deserve* to be busted - For once, stupidity was punishable. Can't fault the cops for shooting the fish in the barrel, when said fish tries so hard to be obvious.
Go back and re-read the article. This guy's deliberate, maliciously afore-thought sabotage threatened Patient. Safety. Data.
Drug interactions can, and do, KILL. And this zit on society's buttocks planned to deliberately destroy data that is one of the primary defenses against adverse drug interactions. That's every bit as serious as planning to, say, take down the traffic control grid at rush hour in a busy city. Had he managed to cary this off, there was a solid, plausible, realistic threat of innocents dying.
Considering the threat, I'd say the possible penalties are proprtionate, maybe even a touch on the light side.
I'm buying the zeppelin! And getting some security and tender zeppelins, too -The servants and little people can take their days off on one of the lesser vessels in my mighty armada of conspicuous consumption, whilst I while away my days in idle luxury... Or maybe I'll be planning world domination from my lofty view!
Day-to-day supplies can be brought up on these:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/12/paramotor_robot_chute_delivery_gps_craft/
Personnel needing to make a visit to the ground can use one of these:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/12/stealth_jetplane_pack_special_forces/
The security zeppelins will be armed with working versions of the ray-gun featured here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/03/raygun_jumbo_just_needs_raygun_now/
And I'll hire an army of madboys and madgirls to keep everything running and invent more cool toys for my armada, which will be the coolest flying fleet of ostentatious menace and luxury ever seen!
Bwa-hahahahahahaaaa!
A lot of this blue-sky stuff isn't intended to actually be a workable product anyway. But the bits of the thchnologies and techniques may find their way into other systems that are more well-developed, at a later date. Say, forinstance, a suit of body armor that the user doesn't so much wear, but that walks *with* him, whilst surrounding him. i.e. the armor supports and moves itself, leaving the user free of the burden. Mind you, they'd need to come up with some pretty flexible and rapid movement adaptation to make it useful, though.
Using an ICBM to service bomber-type targets is, as already noted, politically insensitive and inflammatory, it's also *really* inefficient, and surprisingly inaccurate in today's world. ICBMs loft about 1000x the mass of the warhead itself to get the warhead where it's going, can only be used once, have CEPs measuring from score to hundreds of feet, and can only service a maximum of ten targets per launch. Further, they're fire-and-forget, and cannot be retargeted or recalled once you push the button.
A bomber re-uses most of the delivery platform over and over and over again, can service many, many targets (depending on load out) per run, can load a mix of munitions for a variety of targets or for a variety of options for the same target, and can deliver everything from dumb gravity bombs to precision laser/GPS/thermal homing weapons with CEPs measuring from tens of feet to fractions of feet. In addition, bombers can be *retargeted* in mid-flight, can loiter looking or waiting for a target, can be *recalled* in mid-flight, and are in all ways vastly more flexible (and less expensive, in the long run) than the inflammatory and provocative ICBMs.
The chief advantage the ICBM has is speed of delivery, and a MACH 6+ bomber removes much of that advantage.
That the author actually suggested such a use for ICBMs suggests a profound lack of critical thinking and/or a profound lack of understanding of the subject.
Jamie's device was indeed ingenious, but hardly fit for field use. It was a lashup design, and not even remotely soldier-, environment-, or combat-resistant. In addition, your average soldier isn't just carrying himself, but also a lot of gear besides. Not that Jamie didn't have a good idea, just that comparing his lashup to a combat-ready rig is rather missing the point.
Sure, if the loss-rate were high, your math works. Mind you, the SnowGeese only have to complete 25 flights each, and they break even. After that, every flight reduces the cost. Plus, the million buys the support gear, too - Additional units are surely less then 500K each, and can be supported by that same gear. Then, there's the fact that the SnowGeese can do things the Sherpa could never do, such as service multiple locations on one run, and go places the Sherpa can never go, such as many, many miles *past* the drop point, or being launched from the ground when there are no aircraft about. How far you think the forward logistics camp is going to huck a Sherpa-equipped crate without air support? If they have a big enough trebuchet, they might be able to deliver to the base's outer sentries. Aircraft time is pretty heavily allocated. With this system, a couple clerks can load up a drone, drive down the main drag of the base in a borrowed truck to launch, then go get lunch, securely confident that their delivery is on its way. Likewise, I'd like to see a Sherpa try to do that nifty leaflet drop...
The Sherpa has its place, but don't be fooled into thinking that the SnowGoose is an expensive boondoggle. It's actually very inexpensive for what it does.
Oh, and about vulnerability - a helicopter has a body of up to 10X the volume of the SnowGoose, and is far, far louder. To shoot a SnowGoose down, you'd need to 1) notice it, and 2) hit a much smaller target. Not so easy as it sounds. Even if you *do* hit it, well... Its parachute is already deployed!
Whilst the SnowGoose is a truly nifty invention, I don't *ever* want them getting loose in the commercial environment... I can just see those things now, buzzing about the local uni campus, spamming pizza coupons and flyers to the latest rave/concert/sports event/drunken orgy/what-have-you.
Mendes shouldn't have been illegal? That's fair enough... But it appears that in your world, the penalty for being illegal is death. Glad I live in the real world, instead of yours.
Back on subject - TASERing is no walk in the park, and probably hurts nearly as much as a tax audit, but considering the alternatives, I'm glad the fuzz *have* the alternative to zap first, before resorting to measures more stern.
Radar sets capable of detecting bare, unadorned humans have been around since the the late 50s. Mind you, back then it was found to be of limited utility - fixed, high-value positions only, and it only worked sometimes. Still, if it worked at all back then, it surely works better now, especially with all the nice radar-shiny metalic kit commandoes would be hauling with them.
HAHO is an invitation to be met on the ground by a large and grumpy 'welcoming' committee. This superman suit limits, at the very least, the amount of time the bad guys have to search - well worth the cost, when you consider that the commandoes using them are pretty pricy in their own right. Anything that substantially reduces exposure to detection is well worth a good look.
Plus, I can't wait until I can take a crack at one for myself - Looks to be as much fun as sex.
Why are they broad? Because you never know what will turn up, and need to be followed up upon. Even surface skims can turn up behavior that needs further investigation. I mentioned above that I have some incredible stories about the kinds of people that seek clearances - Including people that list their *drug dealers* as security references. Yes, that really happened in at least one case of which I am personally aware. So, even though the HSPD-12 is a minimally invasive surface scan, only capable of finding the most obvious of criminal behavior, sometimes obvious (and oblivious) criminals seek clearance.
Thus, the broad waivers - if you're a stupid criminal, and get caught on the HSPD-12, you not only deserve what you get, but you can also NOT claim that you didn't authorize the investigation.
Considering that I worked for Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton, I'm not at all certain that, for at least two of those regimes, the current environment is all that different. The only thing that's really changed is that now, the gov't shenanigans are being outed, instead of more-or-less competently swept under the rug.
Anyway, as noted, the HSPD-12 is indeed a minor surface skim, and will only catch the most obvious of illegal behavior. If these bozos are scared of *that,* they really DO need to be let go. They're either too stupid, or too obviously criminals, to be allowed to call themselves 'government-funded rocket scientists' any longer. The clearance is a condition of employment. They're free to choose to comply, or to choose another employer.
I've held some supremely high clearances, when I worked for Uncle. I'm talking SCI-level clearances. No, I ain't telling which ones. The point is, they don't really give a rat's carcass who you've been boffing, so long as you're not liable for blackmail. They don't care what your finances look like, beyond that you're not so desperate that a bribe would seriously tempt you. They *do* care about risk-taking behavior of the sort that makes you liable to *become* subject to blackmail, or might make you seriously unreliable on the job (such as compulsive gambling, or un-treated addictions), or might make you so desperate as you might look for radical forms of relief. They *do* care about *radical* anti-Americanism, but could care less about less radical political beliefs. Likewise, so long as you're not a Branch Davidian, or the like, they don't care about your religion, either. They just want to be sure you're reasonably stable, not insane, and not a mole or plant.
Mostly, background checks are to give reasonable assurance that you have reasonable judgement, are not an immediate security risk, and are reasonably blackmail-proof. I've got some amazing stories about the kinds of people whom have asked for clearances, and about the kinds of government-known backgrounds people have had whom had their clearances granted. Drug use? Yup, it's been waivered. Criminal records? They can be waivered too, provided you've complied with your punishments, and the crime wasn't too severe. Sexual history? For the most part the government could care less, and I've had co-workers, with the same clearences as I (or higher), that were gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual. Didn't matter - they were open, and so could not be blackmailed about it.
IOW, these 28 prima donnas are basically acting like spoiled brats, throwing a tantrum and holding their breath until they turn blue, all over what amounts to a whole lotta nothing. Who cares about a buncha spoiled punks? Let them go - they *are* replaceable.
These guys should've never made it past the first checkpoint. Someone has some seriously slack procedures. Still, no harm done. I say strip the offenders (including the slack police) naked, paint them bright orange, and turn them loose in the city center to find their own way home as best they're able. Put camera crews on them, and you'll have your comedy filler for their show.
"...with the state of pollution as it is already?..."
Really now... Who cares? They could run flights 24/7/52, and still not match the pollution coming off all the crap lawnmowers on an average sunny weekend. For that matter, cows are pooting out more methane greenhouse gasses every day than this operation would put out in a decade of operation.
A few problems with 'robust, low-power' wipers. One, automated wipers add weight; Two they're another point of failure; Three, they add complexity. Merely adding redundant capacity is simple, non-complex, and relatively lightweight. Why bother with wipers, if you've a simple, off-the-shelf solution at hand?
Lastly, have you ever tried to clean up gull poop? It's like trying to wipe up spilled paint - it smears all over the place. Wipers would likely just wind up spreading the mess about, blocking up far more of the panel than the original plop did. Even supposing you could get a clean sweep, so to speak, gull poop is also usually filled with the abrasive remnants of fish and shellfish, and scours clear surfaces quite well - things like painted and varnished surfaces can wind up scuffed and dulled if you're not careful in the cleanup. Somehow, I doubt the solar panel surfaces will work better after they've been given a good poop-based scrubing.
"...after years of always taking backups to protect data it just goes against the grain to assault a disk with a hammer!..."
Huh. I never find it difficult at all. Quite theraputic, really. Mind you, I don't usually stoop to the chisel level - I use a 16lbm splitting maul, which usually goes straight through the drive, platters and all, on the first go. Once I used a 20-ton hydraulic press with a punch. That was a real hoot, but too slow for day to day destruction.
This old chest-thumping argument again.
*rolls eyes*
On any given day, no matter who you are, no matter how good you are, there's *always* someone better.
Ninja v. Monk. v. Samurai v. whomever... Someone will will, and someone will not. And no one here knows who that would be.
Except Chuck, of course. Chuck knows all.
You think the yahoos and tossers in traffic are bad now? Imagine giving those boneheads a third dimension in which to screw off! Flaming wrecks raining from the sky within a day of the first sale of any viable skycar...
Mind you, that might restart human evolution. Mayhap Moller could give ol' Darwin a boost...
Me, I'm going back to dreaming of jetpacks. Or maybe a SoloTrek.
:p
@Various:
"..."those who don't have any self control don't belong at an anarchist gathering."..."
"...-what?..."
The whole point of anarchism is that responsible, self-controlled people don't need government. It's not about random, willful behavior - *that* is the province of Aleister Crowley and company. Conversely, if one is NOT a responsible, self-controled individual, one has *need* of governance, and should presumably be at home with a babysitter, not out wandering around with the adults.
"...eruption of Vesuvius took out an area of 13 milliWales, although the effects of the blast were felt up to a thousand brontosauruses away. Survivors reported rocks and pumice the size of Bulgarian airbags falling from the sky for three days before the tragedy, and experts have calculated the total debris would fill around 120,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools..."
Pure comedy gold!
"...but of course if they legalised it then Columbia would be one of the richest country's on earth..."
Hardly - it'd be taxed, regulated, and 'bureaucrated' nigh unto death. The US price wouldn't change much, except it might drop some - not much, as theprice is already at or near what the market will bear. The middle costs (taxes and such), would go through the roof OTOH, so the price paid on the supply end would have to fall - Columbia does NOT want this legalized - it'd cut their drug profits' throat.
State of the US education system? Some people are just stupid. Others are just thoughtless. They come that way out of the box - education systems aren't needed to explain that fact. One incident is hardly evidence - it's an anecdote. Anecdote != data.
OTOH, the number of people claiming that an anecdote = data is sufficiently large that perhaps we can call *that* data on *some* people's education...
@Frasier:
US isn't Europe, and it's *not* the same - the distances between metro areas are far greater, on average. Yeah, digging cuts down on some kinds of costs, but it greatly raises other kinds of costs - the telecoms and power providers here are quite capable of doing basic maths, and have figured out what costs *them* the least. If it were cheaper here, overall, to bury the lines, they would. In general it isn't, so they don't.
@Acme Fixer:
Yes, damned annoying. Doesn't mean it isn't also expensive, but when you get right down to it, how did the actual damage affect Joe Average? He had to wait a some seconds longer for his grotty pics, or his e-mail might have arrived a bit late, and so on. In the large scheme of things, it's only somewhat above this morning's commute as a topic of conversation. The only reason we're still talking about it still is that it's fibre, instead of stop signs and mailboxes.
@Steven Knox, kain preacher:
:-D
"...What's the chances that the department of homeland insecurity slaps these morons with domestic terrorism charges?..."
Somewhere between 'Zero' and 'None.' Idjiits being idjiits isn't terrorism, and never has been - Not even the DHS would try that one on. Slack-jawed idjiits have been blazing away at the infrastructure at random for so long now that it's become an expectation. Heck, many of the various entities even have set-aside budget for such vandalism.
Still doesn't stop it from being damned annoying, though.
When the Nav mothballed the old Bainbridge Naval Training Center, they leased part of the base to the Job Corps (think boarding school/vo-tech center for at-risk students) for a while. The inhabitants of the school would sneak out at night and go into the old Naval Housing complex, and rip out the pipes, wiring, and fixtures to sell or trade for beer & drugs. You could hear them in there, night after night, tearing at the old buildings.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
