http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/27/airborne_laser_test/ I wonder if this one will work out, unlike Reagan's Star Wars program.
Haha !! time for "preparation H" eh ! **sticks little finger in the air near mouth** MOUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
Just what we need, more great bloody flying things that can explode stuff. Is it just me, or does the "HELLADS programme" sound like some sort of grand telemarketing scheme orchestrated by the devil?
er... wouldn't the potential missile launchers first shoot down the "Boeing doing a figure 8 over any potential launching site"? (like, from ANOTHER launching site, or from another airplane?) Or am I missing something?
Well, keep in mind that the system's designed for ICBMs, Mowgli. Hard to target the plane from halfway around the world.
Well I think it's great, soon we'll have to invent counter-measures for the laser and shields against the counter-measures and maybe progress to phaser technology, then before we know it Rincewind will be opening a bar with kebab shop on Rigal 6!
I'm thinking of something stupid here... if the laser misses the missile and hits the earth somewhere, does some poor innocent farmer in Kentucky get vaporised or what ? I really must stop thinking...
SHHHHH!!!! how is the ghost of ronnie raygun supposed to rest in peace if you ruin the business deals for the military industrial complex that he couldn't achieve in his own life?
Well, if the system works, it'll be a pretty good idea. Cause the missiles to blow up before they hit the ground. Nothing wrong with that. Even peace-loving hippies must admit that stopping missiles from blowing people up is, of itself, a good thing. The question is whether this thing can actually work, which is doubtful.
[quote:60bd7c97a4="Ba"]Well, if the system works, it'll be a pretty good idea. Cause the missiles to blow up before they hit the ground. Nothing wrong with that. Even peace-loving hippies must admit that stopping missiles from blowing people up is, of itself, a good thing.[/quote:60bd7c97a4] Ba, they'd say that the best solution to missiles is to be nice to the people who have them so that they won't shoot them at anyone. Placating the Warlord is the peace-loving hippie's strategy for life. At least as long as it isn't [i:60bd7c97a4]his[/i:60bd7c97a4] warlord.
[quote:8dbd35532e="Roman_K"][quote:8dbd35532e="Ba"]Well, if the system works, it'll be a pretty good idea. Cause the missiles to blow up before they hit the ground. Nothing wrong with that. Even peace-loving hippies must admit that stopping missiles from blowing people up is, of itself, a good thing.[/quote:8dbd35532e] Ba, they'd say that the best solution to missiles is to be nice to the people who have them so that they won't shoot them at anyone. Placating the Warlord is the peace-loving hippie's strategy for life. At least as long as it isn't [i:8dbd35532e]his[/i:8dbd35532e] warlord.[/quote:8dbd35532e] "His or her", Roman! Us females have burned countless expensive undergarments to have equal rights to hippyness. In fact, you should also add Warlord/Warlady too.
'i've got a clever idea, let's explode bombs and scatter radioactive isotopes over a MUCH wider area. the immediate effects of the detonations will be greatly reduced, but who can say what the long term effects might be?'
The nice thing about this potential weapons system is that, unless we build a crapload of them, it could only take out 1 or 2 concurrently launched ICBMs, which is our current goal, and would make Russia and CHina relax a little bit. Israeli plans to nuke the US, however, would be thwarted!
[quote:dcf140e416="Bradthewonderllama"]The nice thing about this potential weapons system is that, unless we build a crapload of them, it could only take out 1 or 2 concurrently launched ICBMs, which is our current goal, and would make Russia and CHina relax a little bit. Israeli plans to nuke the US, however, would be thwarted![/quote:dcf140e416] The fact that we don't have a missile that can even leave the immediate region, not to mention the atmosphere, is of course beside the point. We just sell them to your enemies and let [i:dcf140e416]them[/i:dcf140e416] handle it.
[quote:94e9c5f736="Katcal"][quote:94e9c5f736="Roman_K"][quote:94e9c5f736="Ba"]Well, if the system works, it'll be a pretty good idea. Cause the missiles to blow up before they hit the ground. Nothing wrong with that. Even peace-loving hippies must admit that stopping missiles from blowing people up is, of itself, a good thing.[/quote:94e9c5f736] Ba, they'd say that the best solution to missiles is to be nice to the people who have them so that they won't shoot them at anyone. Placating the Warlord is the peace-loving hippie's strategy for life. At least as long as it isn't [i:94e9c5f736]his[/i:94e9c5f736] warlord.[/quote:94e9c5f736] "His or her", Roman! Us females have burned countless expensive undergarments to have equal rights to hippyness. In fact, you should also add Warlord/Warlady too.[/quote:94e9c5f736] I don't approve of political correctness. *sets Katcal on fire* [quote:94e9c5f736="Garner"]'i've got a clever idea, let's explode bombs and scatter radioactive isotopes over a MUCH wider area. the immediate effects of the detonations will be greatly reduced, but who can say what the long term effects might be?'[/quote:94e9c5f736] Erm, there's not enough nuclear waste in one warhead to cause even a hundredth of the damage a nuclear detonation would cause. Including the long-term damage.
Indeed. While nuclear material getting into the atmosphere is almost certainly a bad thing, it will not be nearly as bad a thing as an actual nuclear detonation, which creates more radioactive material and spreads it over a much larger area. Yes, the optimal solution is that no nuclear missiles are launched. But that doesn't mean that stopping them from hitting is a bad idea either. Arguing that this system is bad because the country in question should use diplomacy to prevent them from being fired is akin to arguing that a police negotiator shouldn't wear a bulletproof vest, because he should try to keep the person from shooting. Yes, it's best if no shots are fired, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't take precautions if things go badly. Ba's objection remains that he doesn't think the damn thing will work.
[quote:ffa3011c27="Ba"]Ba's objection remains that he doesn't think the damn thing will work.[/quote:ffa3011c27] I agree there. The Pentagon seems to be spending shitloads of cash on just about anything that looks shiny. Like that butterfly control chip.
a chip for controlling butterlies ? :shock: WHat are they going to do, force butterflies to bomb irak with cocoons ?
[quote:28f43502a2="Katcal"]a chip for controlling butterlies ? :shock: WHat are they going to do, force butterflies to bomb irak with cocoons ?[/quote:28f43502a2] But maybe it's the Quantum Weather Butterfly - and that can make you live in Interesting Times!
[quote:03c6bf9d5e="Katcal"][quote:03c6bf9d5e="Roman_K"][quote:03c6bf9d5e="Ba"]Well, if the system works, it'll be a pretty good idea. Cause the missiles to blow up before they hit the ground. Nothing wrong with that. Even peace-loving hippies must admit that stopping missiles from blowing people up is, of itself, a good thing.[/quote:03c6bf9d5e] Ba, they'd say that the best solution to missiles is to be nice to the people who have them so that they won't shoot them at anyone. Placating the Warlord is the peace-loving hippie's strategy for life. At least as long as it isn't [i:03c6bf9d5e]his[/i:03c6bf9d5e] warlord.[/quote:03c6bf9d5e] "His or her", Roman! Us females have burned countless expensive undergarments to have equal rights to hippyness. In fact, you should also add Warlord/Warlady too.[/quote:03c6bf9d5e] [size=12:03c6bf9d5e]Hijack warning! Hijack warning![/size:03c6bf9d5e] I have never understood the logic behind the whole bra-burning idea - maybe , Katcal, , since you brought the subject up, you can explain it to me - I thought one of the major aims of feminism was to stop being considered a sex-object - so why discard what is probably the most effective female defense after the chastity belt - even the front-loaders can be a bugger to get off - and even away from direct sexual contact, I would rather see them swinging free (even under other garments) than confined, so that is actually [i:03c6bf9d5e]more[/i:03c6bf9d5e] sexually significant - but I am a 56-year-old unreformed male chauvinistic pig, so what do I know? (I hope this isn't going to get me slapped down again by Garner, but I consider it a legitimate question - even if badly phrased - I am still recovering from a [i:03c6bf9d5e]very[/i:03c6bf9d5e] long day yesterday doing a a full theatrical get-in and tech rehearsal in one day!.)
Well to answer that question... Uh... I honestly have no idea ! I was just basically being silly, my sister in law is quite an authority on feminism, she gives conferences and writes articles and stuff, so we do tend to take the piss - in a friendly, joky way, of course - and it tends to stick... But on the whole bra subject, my only point of view is that at some point the damn thing stops being unnecessary (or hardly) decoration, and starts being vital support to avoid breaking your back or tripping over the damn things... Basically a DD cup without one is just as ridiculous as an A cup with one... But yes, this is a big hi-jack, and Garner will just bash us for talking about boob size again for no reason. Let's get back to those laser-equipped butterflies, please.
[quote:1ebc493b9a="Katcal"]Well to answer that question... Uh... I honestly have no idea ! I was just basically being silly, my sister in law is quite an authority on feminism, she gives conferences and writes articles and stuff, so we do tend to take the piss - in a friendly, joky way, of course - and it tends to stick... But on the whole bra subject, my only point of view is that at some point the damn thing stops being unnecessary (or hardly) decoration, and starts being vital support to avoid breaking your back or tripping over the damn things... Basically a DD cup without one is just as ridiculous as an A cup with one... But yes, this is a big hi-jack, and Garner will just bash us for talking about boob size again for no reason. Let's get back to those laser-equipped butterflies, please.[/quote:1ebc493b9a] To sneak a few more comments in before Garner notices that we are discussing sex again: Maybe your sister-in-law could explain the logic behind bra-burning? I can't see it myself - in my sexist way, I like bra-less women! Given that I will never have to support the extra unbalancing weight of breasts, I still carry things around from time to time, so can appreciate the value of some form of harness designed to aid this - so that is why I still have difficulty in understanding why the "tool for the job" became a symbol of male oppressioin. This is one of the cases where evolution is lagging behind - remember that the human race evolved from quadrupeds - the female breast would hang down from the body - with the human upright posture, the breasts hang at ninety degrees fom this position, and that's where the Cooper's ligaments (which theoretically support the mammary glands) don't work properly any more - so without artificial support, there are likely to be problems - or at least some discomfort - at least, that's the way I see it as a mere male - but it does also give me a chance to throw in a sexist joke: Q: Why are a woman's breasts like an electric train set? A. They are both intended for children, but daddy's like to play with them too!
Maybe it's just the symbol of being "contained" as one's breasts are in a bra, guided and moulded into a given shape by someone else ? I'll ask her next time I see her, I'm sure that will give her a good excuse to launch into an hour-long private conference...
[quote:5a7e36c851="Katcal"]a chip for controlling butterlies ? :shock: WHat are they going to do, force butterflies to bomb irak with cocoons ?[/quote:5a7e36c851] Spying. The idea is to insert chips into the butterflies while they are in the cocoon, and then create an army of cyber-insect to do their bidding! Mwahahaha! Ahem.
[quote:4f39e06d45="Katcal"]Maybe it's just the symbol of being "contained" as one's breasts are in a bra, guided and moulded into a given shape by someone else ? I'll ask her next time I see her, I'm sure that will give her a good excuse to launch into an hour-long private conference...[/quote:4f39e06d45] I think the confinement of the bra is linked to the confinement of female sexuality. i.e. breasts must be firmly contained and not flop around as it may provoke men with lust and women are supposed to be demure and pure... Theres also the side that a bra lifts and shapes breasts actually making them more attractive to men, rather than the saggy milk bags they're supposed to be. So burning your bra releases your boobs confinement, from sexual repression as well as sexual objectification of the breasts... (ah the theses I could write...) If the blokes in this place want to know about the confining nature of the bra, take some super strength elastic bands and stretch them to breaking point around your chest. then place two wire arcs under your nipples, covered with material that doesn't breath and is lacy so it looks good but scratches the hell out of your nipples. Then fill fabric with water baloons, and then walk areound all day, run, lay flat on the ground, i.e. engage in any physical activity and then wonder why the first thing women did when acheiving liberation was to burn the bloody bra.
[quote:45854663b4="Roman_K"][quote:45854663b4="Katcal"]a chip for controlling butterlies ? :shock: WHat are they going to do, force butterflies to bomb irak with cocoons ?[/quote:45854663b4] Spying. The idea is to insert chips into the butterflies while they are in the cocoon, and then create an army of cyber-insect to do their bidding! Mwahahaha! Ahem.[/quote:45854663b4] Humm... actually, fitting them with mini-lasers would then be a good idea... then they could cut their way through steel doors to get into buildings and spy better. On the other hand, tha average lifespan of a butterfly being around one month, seems a bit of a waste, doesn't it ? **shrugs and wanders off wondering if female butterflies wear bras**
