In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The U.S. Navy recently test fired the world’s first operational and deployed laser weapons from a warship in the Persian Gulf. According to CNN, the world’s first active laser weapons system was fired from the Austin-class amphibious transport dock USS Ponce. The laser successfully destroyed an unnamed aerial vehicle (UAV) and moving surface targets.
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light silently hitting their target and burning it to a temperature of thousands of degrees. Unlike depicted in movies such as Star Wars, the laser beam, essentially a narrow beam of focused light, is entirely invisible.
“It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don’t see the beam, it doesn’t make any sound, it’s completely silent and it’s incredibly effective at what it does,” Lieutenant Cale Hughes, the laser weapons system officer aboard the USS Ponce told CNN.
Lasers are primarily intended for short-range defense (one to five miles) against aircraft, drones, and small boats. Second-generation laser weapons systems are currently under development intended to take on faster targets such as incoming ballistic missiles.
During previous tests, lasers have taken out cruise missiles, mortars and other projectiles, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.
The $40 million weapons system requires a crew of three and a supply of electricity (generated from its own small generator) to operate. The 30-kilowatt, laser weapon, installed aboard the USS Ponce already in 2014, is extremely accurate and can be scaled depending on the target.
“I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary,” said the commanding officer of the USS Ponce, Captain Christopher Wells. “It reduces collateral damage — I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don’t want to hurt or damage.”
“It is more precise than a bullet,” Wells added. “It’s not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it’s only good against air contacts, or it’s only good against surface targets, or it’s only good against, you know, ground-based targets — in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets.”
Unlike a traditional gun, a laser never runs out of bullets given that it has an infinite magazine as long as it is connected to a power source. Furthermore, in comparison to missile-based defensive systems firing a laser is cheap. “It’s about a dollar a shot,” according to Hughes. The SM-6, the U.S. Navy’s latest missile interceptor designed to engage the most advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, comes in at around $4 million per shot.
The downside of laser weapons systems is that they consume a lot of energy on the one hand, and that they have difficulties penetrating dust, haze, and smoke on the other hand, which makes it difficult to effectively operate them under adverse weather conditions. Possible counter-measure against laser weapons include fitting aircraft, boats and drones, with anti-laser coating or laser-deflecting mirrors. It should also be noted that an international agreement prohibits the targeting of human beings with laser weapons of any type.
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light
Just in case the reader thought light normally travels at the speed of sound?
Anyway, yeah. It firing at the speed of light, and straight independent on wind, is a huge advantage over traditional weapons, makes targeting a hell of a lot easier.
The only problem is that it is dependent on weather at the moment (cloudy days are a bad day for ships with this weapon)
Side note, I am sad that make no noise. Is it not a law in America that all laser weapons must go pew pew? Is it not? Who do I write in order to fix this?
The U.S. Navy recently test fired the world’s first operational and deployed laser weapons from a warship in the Persian Gulf. According to CNN, the world’s first active laser weapons system was fired from the Austin-class amphibious transport dock USS Ponce. The laser successfully destroyed an unnamed aerial vehicle (UAV) and moving surface targets.
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light silently hitting their target and burning it to a temperature of thousands of degrees. Unlike depicted in movies such as Star Wars, the laser beam, essentially a narrow beam of focused light, is entirely invisible.
“It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don’t see the beam, it doesn’t make any sound, it’s completely silent and it’s incredibly effective at what it does,” Lieutenant Cale Hughes, the laser weapons system officer aboard the USS Ponce told CNN.
Lasers are primarily intended for short-range defense (one to five miles) against aircraft, drones, and small boats. Second-generation laser weapons systems are currently under development intended to take on faster targets such as incoming ballistic missiles.
During previous tests, lasers have taken out cruise missiles, mortars and other projectiles, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.
The $40 million weapons system requires a crew of three and a supply of electricity (generated from its own small generator) to operate. The 30-kilowatt, laser weapon, installed aboard the USS Ponce already in 2014, is extremely accurate and can be scaled depending on the target.
“I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary,” said the commanding officer of the USS Ponce, Captain Christopher Wells. “It reduces collateral damage — I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don’t want to hurt or damage.”
“It is more precise than a bullet,” Wells added. “It’s not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it’s only good against air contacts, or it’s only good against surface targets, or it’s only good against, you know, ground-based targets — in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets.”
Unlike a traditional gun, a laser never runs out of bullets given that it has an infinite magazine as long as it is connected to a power source. Furthermore, in comparison to missile-based defensive systems firing a laser is cheap. “It’s about a dollar a shot,” according to Hughes. The SM-6, the U.S. Navy’s latest missile interceptor designed to engage the most advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, comes in at around $4 million per shot.
The downside of laser weapons systems is that they consume a lot of energy on the one hand, and that they have difficulties penetrating dust, haze, and smoke on the other hand, which makes it difficult to effectively operate them under adverse weather conditions. Possible counter-measure against laser weapons include fitting aircraft, boats and drones, with anti-laser coating or laser-deflecting mirrors. It should also be noted that an international agreement prohibits the targeting of human beings with laser weapons of any type.
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light
Just in case the reader thought light normally travels at the speed of sound?
Anyway, yeah. It firing at the speed of light, and straight independent on wind, is a huge advantage over traditional weapons, makes targeting a hell of a lot easier.
I wanted to quote the same sentence. You could have the said the exact same by saying : "It shoots light".
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote: I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.
Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.
what kind of bars are you talking about? there are many different degrees and potential bars. i'm not sure who you're repsonding to, there's lots of related discussion, I'm just not sure which particular person/incident/law you're responding to, so it's hard to respond back.
also, you're ignoring hte reality that public debate does not convince people that well. many people are objectively wrong but will continue to believe something anyways, no matter how much the evidence is shown to them. rational rigorous debate does not actually convince most people of much.
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote: I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.
Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.
Yeah, that does not work.
If someone is arguing for your death you are not going to sit there and argue back. You do not get in a fight where if you win the other guy looks like an idiot but if they win YOU FUCKING DIE!
There are some things that are not and should never be allowed to be said. Fuck anyone who advocates for genocide and you do not stand up to those people with words. You stand up to them with force.
Especially when it comes to genocide and other terrible practices. Public debate is not the venue that wins that argument. There is overwhelming historical evidence that polite, non-violent resistance and hoping better ideas will prevail does little to prevent mass murder. In some cases, engaging in the public debate is harmful to the cause because it gives the genocide advocate(FYI: they never directly advocate for mass murder) a venue. From history, the standard response to these events is always "we should have fought back earlier".
I link this since Buckyman made the same point on earlier CBO scorings. If you don't make people buy something they don't want to purchase, they'll still have access to coverage but get counted in "lose coverage." No, idiots, they didn't want it in the first place. I say this even for people that think the nanny state should make it its job to force people into good decisions.
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote: I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.
Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.
Thus explaining why there are no Holocaust deniers anymore. Someone posted a youtube video showing how ridiculous and absurd their beliefs are and they all got together, watched the youtube video and thought "wow, that guy made some good points about the Jews" and the problem was solved forever.
I link this since Buckyman made the same point on earlier CBO scorings. If you don't make people buy something they don't want to purchase, they'll still have access to coverage but get counted in "lose coverage." No, idiots, they didn't want it in the first place. I say this even for people that think the nanny state should make it its job to force people into good decisions.
Completely misses the point. Those are still millions less people paying into the pot, which means it becomes untenable to cover those with pre-existing conditions. We've had this discussion multiple times.
You also end up paying for many of them when they show up at the ER after an unexpected accident/illness. Then the public has still paid the cost of the care, but you also get a personal bankruptcy to go along with it.
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote: I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.
Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.
I think the quote in my signature explains pretty well, why your point is nonsense and does not apply to any real-world scenario.
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote: I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.
Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.
I think the quote in my signature explains pretty well, why your point is nonsense and does not apply to any real-world scenario.
My personal favor is “Never argue with a drunk or a fool,” with its earthy common sense and likening the “fool” to someone who’s basic judgment is impaired.
The CBO numbers weren't what killed the bill anyway (the Medicaid cuts and the GOP's absurd promises to the people on the right in their party did that), so I don't mind that they're calculating how many fewer people have coverage by taking the number who would have coverage if the bill passes and subtracting the number who would have coverage if it doesn't pass.
I'd blame the GOP for completely losing the messaging battle (for one of the first times recently) if it had been relevant, not the CBO.
Plus, the bill is dead, and just repealing is dead, so who even cares?
While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."
If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.
I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).
Check out the President of the United State's deep understanding of how health insurance works. The man is a dangerous imbecile who has health insurance confused with term life insurance. If you still defend him, that makes you as dumb as he is.
As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So preexisting conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.
[W]e’re putting in $8bn [to a high-risk coverage pool] and you’re going to have absolute coverage. You’re going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You’re going to have it if you’re a person going in … don’t forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you’re 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you’re 70, and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance.
On July 21 2017 03:35 mozoku wrote: While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."
If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.
I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).
public debate has also been factually proven to do a poor job at settling healthcare, national defense, and pretty much all the other issues. not that we have a vastly better system to offer at this time; but it's pretty clear that people are idiots, and their votes show a lack of understanding in general. not that you can blame them; some problems are complicated, and you can't expect most people to be able to have a useful opinion on them. public debate is more aboutj getting social buy-in than about actually establishing anything as true or figuring out what the best policy is.
if the controversial speakers had something useful to say; I'd care more about protecting them, a lot of them are just assholes looking to rile people up, rather than people trying to have a seroius, thoughtful, and rigorous debate. Also not fond of spending piles of cash unless it's for a speaker of serious import and prestige. tens of thousands of dollars may not be huge, but it's not chump change either; there's a lot you can do with money like that.
On July 21 2017 03:35 mozoku wrote: While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."
If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.
I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).
Debates in good faith have merit and can be powerful tools to share ideas. Debates with bad faith actors are simply platforms for them to spread their message. If someone is so shameless that they will claim any debate is a victory, regardless of performance, it is a clear sign that they should not be debated.
Or to put is simply: the free exchange of ideas is based on the concept that all of us have something of value to add to the discourse. If someone is arguing that I or others are worthless and should be purged from the population, they are violating that fundamental rule. We declared it when the founders said that it was self evident that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can we enter a good faith debate when with someone who denies that first part?
This morning, Benjamin Wittes wrote in strong terms about the extraordinary interview the President gave the New York Times and what it reveals about Trump’s understanding of legal institutions and the rule of law. The main theme playing through Trump’s comments is that, as President, he has a clear call on the loyalties and responsiveness of Department of Justice and the FBI. In this case, as in others, the President displays an ethical posture defined by a narrow and intense concern with his own interests. This is an ethics that may have served him well in business. However, it will have disastrous consequences when carried over into the exercise of his public responsibility as President—a duty to act on behalf of others. Ben suggests the DOJ officials should resign in protest; Jack Goldsmith answers that this would be counterproductive and that the most appropriate strongest response would be for all concerned in senior law enforcement to just do their jobs.
...
The interview is one more widening of the window on discussions taking place within the White House about a potential firing of Robert Mueller. The President's riff on the history of the FBI's independence since Nixon was plainly the result of a discussion with his legal team. One has to doubt that the president independently and out of personal curiosity researched the Bureau’s institutional history.
Consider that together with the comments from Jay Sekulow on the networks Sunday about the irregularities in the appointment of Mueller, and it appears clear that his team is reviewing with him and actively preparing for this possibility. This is the one aspect of the interview that could have been intended to serve Trump’s legal defense purposes. He is building the case for dismissal with all his claims against Mueller and others of “conflicts” interest, and he reaffirms in the interview that he has that authority: “[I]t can’t be obstruction because you can say: It’s ended. It’s over. Period.”
Few lawyers would say that the president helped his legal position with this interview. It may be that he only cares so much about the substance if he has concluded that he can end it all, “period,” terminating the investigation and then daring the Congress to impeach him. He would them have put the law behind him and it would be all politics. In the end, though he came close, Nixon would not go that far. As president and as “client,” Trump is different.
Fox has been particularly "unkind" (considering their past treatment of Trump) to him lately. I can't tell if they are losing patience with him, or if they see this coming to an end sooner rather than later.
@Plansix and zlefin Who decides what is good speech and what is bad speech though?
Under the status quo, it's a combination of violent mobs and university administrators (who can apparently buckle to the mob if they think it's too expensive to restrain). I'm not sure I really like that for the system that's charged with educating our youth.
I'd rather universities simply set a strong precedent that violent protests will not be tolerated. That is how a functioning democracy should work, after all. It doesn't matter what the speaker is saying; violence has no place in our society. Isn't that a lesson the protesters should be learning at university anyway?
At any of these Milo or Ann Coulter events, has any student been expelled or otherwise punished by the universities? At the very least, you'd think a solution like making protesters where large name tags, holding the event in a venue with security cameras, and taking disciplinary action (for those who are acting belligerently) would be feasible and fairly cheap. The fear of being kicked out of uni, in combination with a moderate-sized security force, would probably be enough to keep the speakers safe.
I'm not very informed about universities efforts to keep the speakers safe. Has there been any real effort from them? I vaguely remember hearing from someone that Milo paid for a security force at DePaul last year (as DePaul refused to pay iirc) and they stood by while the protesters rushed past them.
EPT
