Empire of the Iguanadons

So what do you get when you cross military hardware with Hollywood style illusion affects? Apparently you get the latest toy the British military has in testing. No, it doesn't use cloaking devices or bend light or shift into an alternate dimension like the cool stuff in a sci-fi show. It uses some simple video techniques to project a shot of the landscape behind the tank onto the opposite side, thus obscuring it from view.

Imagine being able to deploy weapons like this into the battlefield and roll right up on that forest hideout of the dictator you've been sent to depose. A couple of these babies and nobody would ever know what hit them. The fact that we've been allowed to find this out suggests that such weapons are probably already out there somewhere, unseen. Though they're telling us that deployment isn't expected until at least 2012.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

The reason I brought up the spelling mistake was because I found it somewhat amusing for you to get on your high horse explaining to the ignorant masses what IEDs were and then make a mistake in doing so. I mean, if you're going to be pompous about something, you had better do it correctly...


I guess I have no choice but to give you the benefit of the doubt, although I'm sorely tempted to believe that what you object to is the mere fact that I am voicing an opinion period, not the content of any opinion I have to voice. You've more or less said as much, in any case, by asking me to not say anything about something unless I've had direct experience in it.


That seems like an awfully easy way out, Kayle. But ok, I'll play along for a moment. Knowledge to the contrary about what? You are blasting me for holding opinions but you refuse to identify those opinions.


Let me get this straight: you are telling me that it is sickening and "socialistic" (??) to analyze ideas with a "scientific approach" and make sure that strong and weak points are identified?

I'm a little surprised... I'd have thought that, when you got sent to fight with a probability of injury or death, a probability you unfortunately got to know all too personally, you would have wanted whoever sent you in to have thought it through. And I would have thought that you would want whoever designed your gear to have paid very careful attention to every last detail. You said yourself that: "even the tiniest detail could save your life". But then, you tell me that it is sickening to think things through to every last detail? I admit that I really don't understand your position, Kayle.


Those are certainly noble goals and I respect you for wanting to achieve them. What I would, however, like to point out is that there are many ways to achieve those goals, and being a soldier is not the only way; I would ask you to respect those people who wish to achieve the same goals by other means. You can help people without fighting for them; you can learn about cultures without going to war; you can defend people without shooting a gun.

That's a pretty interesting link. Two things I find interesting about it are that (1) it was developed at a university (hmm) and more importantly (2) it requires an external projector (see their diagram). I'm fairly certain that for this to be viable for mobile objects (say, people) you would need to do something other than projection. There's been work in chameleon-type material that I find to be very interesting, and IMHO much more promising for actual "cloaking".

What part of I'm not allowed to discuss hard to understand? I was discharged under the instruction not to discuss things I had seen, used, or been trained on. Some of the things you comment about, are things I can't discuss. What about this seems like an easy way out? I don't refuse to identify them, I refuse to scroll through the 50 some odd posts and find them all.



No, I'm saying the degree you take it to, is sickening and socialistic. And by socialistic, I mean, of or pertaining to a socialist nature. Since I'm assuming that's what the (??) was for.



A lot of what goes on when you're out on patrol in the streets of Baghdad isn't about what someone else thought through. It was where you were and at what time, and if that happened to be when insurgents decided to strike. And I don't want anything, I expect those designing and producing combat gear for the military to pay close attention to the little details. But paying attention to details, and picking out every single flaw in something when it's all purely speculative is what you were doing.



This is all too true, but it was the path I chose based on family tradition.

Grammar correction:


What part of I'm not allowed to discuss is so hard to understand?

I know that "socialistic" means "pertaining to a socialist nature". What I was trying to figure out is how exactly it is "socialist" to think something through. It makes it sound as if you believe capitalism does not believe in careful analysis. That's pretty funny, because pillars of capitalism like Smith, Taylor and Ford founded most of their work on very careful analysis of efficiency and so forth.


What makes it seem like an easy way out is that you are using it to say "I'm right, you're wrong, so there". It would be like: oh, by the way Kayle, I worked on military projects that I'm not allowed to discuss, but what I did there proves that I'm right, but yeah, I can't tell you why because you're not cleared to know. (FWIW, it's true that I worked in military-funded research, but nothing classified. The place I'll work at starting Aprilish, though, is "secretive" in that I'll be dealing with trade secrets. Oooh, secrets... )


The distinction being drawn is somewhat bizarre, and sounds like another easy way out. (It's an easy way out because you have made a pretty bold claim but are unwilling to back it up.) But hey, whatever, dude...


So it's necessary to be vigilant towards detail in some cases, but then it's sickening to do so when discussing science you're not producing? One basic rule of science, and in fact intellectual work in general, is to not stand for inaccuracy. (And no, I'm not saying that this is unique to scientific endeavor.) To not point out inaccuracy would be much like a failure in integrity. If you think it is sickening for me to stand up for what I believe to be fundamental integrity, well, I guess that's kind of too bad, but the way it is.


Why, then, do you come out blasting me for not having been a soldier myself? Is the fact that you followed your family's footsteps more valuable than the fact that I followed mine? I am not criticizing your choice, and am not entirely sure why you feel it necessary (or justified) to do so for mine.

I dunno, Honestly I've been pulling some of this out of my ass to see if I could get a Blog entry to break 50 comments. And I guess a part of me wanted to see just how easy it would be to get under your skin as well. Why? I dunno. Boredom mostly I would think.

To clarify, about 90% of what was directed AT you, David, was me being a shit head, and pulling things out of my ass, just to see how far above 50 I could get this list of comments, but I'm bored now, and going to go back about ripping my hair out over the tedious little things involved in rewriting character creation in Smaug.

Does that mean the last 15 didn't count or something?

Regardless of whether you were poking fun, kidding, or whatever, I do think David has been over analyzing the applications of the cloaking technology. And with that link Dwip provided it's become clear that the projector method is just plain silly. So continuing to worry about how they're supposed to hide the things seems entirely moot.

David, you do have an odd tendency to get riled up easily. I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this, but I'm going to anyway. It's typical of folks on the left to wildly overreact to anything that's presented in a blunt or harsh manner, even if the presenter is dead on in their analysis. It's part of what made the last major topic so interesting. I've also noticed you do tend to explain something and then get upset when people read your words and it's apparently not exactly what you meant. The confusion only gets worse when others begin to pick at what's been said, leading to runaway threads. Like this one

I kind of like how a vindication of what I was saying is somehow turned against me, Samson. :-) BTW, Akismet ate my reply to your post reminding us about the link. (Akismet has been doing that to me a fair bit these days...)

I thought your argument in the last topic was all just a big hoot -- how can it be dead on in its analysis if you were just messing around saying things that you believe to be untrue? :-)

I don't think it's so terrible to not like being misunderstood, especially if that misunderstanding is turned against you. If the misunderstanding was my fault, then I need to use better words or explain myself otherwise; if the misunderstanding was somebody else's fault, then I want to figure out what happened and determine if it was accidental (vast majority of cases) or intentional (very small minority of cases). But if people pick at what's been said, that's fine too, (as long as I am given a chance to explain myself) but I like them to actually cite what's said, not dance around the point saying they don't feel like citing what I said.

As for Kayle, well, I call bull and yet another easy way out (let's call it, say, an "emergency backpedaling maneuver", but this is an easy way out that is favorable to me as well since it means Kayle isn't as unpleasant (to not use his words, "a shit head" as he was apparently just pretending to be. For what it's worth, if it is all just a big joke, I don't find it terribly amusing to tell people how much they sicken you and how little integrity they have... but maybe that's just me.

Kayle, if you were just joking around, am I correct to assume that the majority of what you have said is not to be taken as your truthful beliefs? :-) Just checking for future reference, since some of what you said, you have said before, and if you say it again, I want to know whether you're being serious or not...

Akismet is having a cow about the link itself for some reason. I've been rejected by it as well. I wonder if the link was spammed on other blogs or something because we've all posted links before that haven't been a problem.



The initial post and first few replies were dead on, until you got riled up, and then I just rolled with it. I know, terrible of me, but hey. I got the point across apparently.

As for the rest, I'm going to let Kayle speak for himself.

Um..

I do indeed think the french are scum, and all of my arguments about them are true.
The following is that which I have said that is true:
My first two initial posts, which I don't feel like quoting again.

All true. Known very well from personal experience.


I've spent the better part of the last two days hobbling around on crutches because my right leg won't support my body weight because of the drastic shift in temperature and the subtle changes in my anatomy due to my accident.


Again, all true, and learned from personal experience.


Again, all true, and learned from personal experience.


Once Again, all true, and learned from personal experience. Except the Court martial, I've never actually had one, had to testify at one, but never been court martialed. or is it marshaled. Court Martial or Marshal ... I think it's the prior. Dunno, brain isn't working atm.


Again, all true, and learned from bitter personal experience. For those curious, the Lt. is doing fine, and his wife just had a baby not too long ago, the week after Conner and Dragona had theirs if I remember right.


This is both true, and something I threw in because I thought it might piss David off.


It's true. Really True.


And for the last time, Again, all true, and learned from personal experience.

Clarified enough?

So, basically, the majority of things you said to me were your beliefs (I won't use the word "true", and not merely something to piss me off. In particular, you have asserted that you truly believe you are somehow a better person than I am despite having previously agreed that the same goals could be achieved in other ways. So I'm not sure why you said that 90% of it was just being "a shit head". Here's what it looks like: you made a bluff, I called you on it, you backpedaled, and having been called out on backpedaling, you're returning to your original positions.

Let's try this, Kayle: you listed a whole bunch of things you said were true, but you claimed that the vast majority of what you said was just playing around. Yet you gave not a single example of something you said in jest; all of your examples were things you claim to be true. Since so much of it was said in jest, it should be really easy to give me an example, right?

Oh, and I'm sure the French love you too. :-) (In fact, on a more serious note, anti-American sentiment comes precisely from attitudes like yours. That probably makes you feel better about yourself, though...)

It's martial, by the way. Martial as in military. (The proper spelling is in fact court-martial; 'martial' is an adjective here. It's like "attorney general".) You're not marshaled to court, although it does make for a funny play on words: being marshaled to a court martial...

Is that all it takes is a couple of average citizens to make the world hate us? I thought that was George W Bush's fault? That's what the left wing media tells us. Oh, wait, sorry, wrong thread.

At least when I hate the French, it's for a good reason. Corrupt governments run by corrupt individuals who strike deals with power mad dictators looking for nuclear weapons has a tendency to cause that kind of hatred in me. Yes, this is even considering that my great grandfather, who we had nicknamed "Grandpa Frenchie" was born and raised there before immigrating to the in the early 1900s.

I didn't say it was justified to generalize to an entire country from an individual or two. I just said that's what happens. Just like how some people generalize to the entire French country from an individual or two. (Americans != you, by the way.)

But please don't act as if the French government is the only one that has corruption and is interested in selling weapons to dubious governments. I challenge you to name a single government that is a paragon of good behavior, that has no corruption, that has never sold weapons to dictators, etc.

Furthermore, hating a particular government shouldn't equate to hating the entire country. Lots of people are very upset with how the current administration is behaving, but aren't exactly out to hate on the whole country. For instance, you had a 'somewhat low' opinion of Clinton's administration, but you didn't hate the USA because of that.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that having a French relative gives you more or less authority to criticize them. That'd be like me saying I have full authority about the military just because my grandfathers were both in it. ;-) (The point I am making is that your opinions should be judged independently of your family background.)

If if wasn't quoted, it was said to get you riled and piss you off.

And yet you quoted the majority of the points you made ...

Man, you guys keep this up and we'll find ourselves all excluded from being allowed to purchase all sorts of wonderful things that the French are responsible for.. crossoints, escargots, bon bons, a great many wines, etc...

Conner, funny that you mention wines... :-) A lot of the French wine exporters are only just figuring out that they can't get away anymore with such high mark-ups on wine simply because it's French. There's been some talk about that in the French press, at least. (Nobody wants to buy our marked-up wines anymore, boohoo...) The end result being that in California, for instance, where the wine industry is booming, for the same amount of money you are much more likely to get a better Californian wine than French wine. But if you were to spend the same amount in France proper, you'd be getting a good wine again. E.g., a wine that costs, oh, 4 euros in France might sell for something like $10 here. The funny thing is that if you spent 10 euros in France, you'd probably be getting something better than if you spent $10 on a Californian wine here...

My point in mentioning it was that I'm not letting my family ancestry alter my opinion of the French, simply because I am French.



It seems to me that just a topic or two ago, you chastised me for trying to make something right because everyone else does it too. So am I to take from this that because all governments are corrupt we can excuse what the French government did and leave them alone for it?

I'm sorry. I'll break down in detail for you why I despise the French government and by extension the people who keep electing them to power.

In the late 1930s, as Hitler was consolidating power in Germany, France sat idly by and did nothing to oppose it. No, they instead did everything to appease it. Then when that didn't work they tried in vain to fight and failed so miserably they lost their capital in very short order. Which necessitated that we come over there to kick Hitler's ass. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died liberating France - which we did because it was the right thing to do and was necessary for world security. Then we made the mistake of giving the bastards a veto vote on the UN Security Council.

In 1959 or 1960, the French ran into trouble with the communists in IndoChina. They were intent on keeping possession of their colonial interests in Vietnam. When they realize their inept military wasn't going to be able to cut it, they called for our help. Then once we got their, ran with their tails between their legs leaving us holding the bag. Thousands of Americans died for something they started and didn't have the guts to finish.

When the time came to resume hostilities with Iraq in the war we began in 1991, we went to the UN to demand enforcement of resolution 1441. Instead of agreeing to help, they threatened to abuse the veto power we gave them when the UN was formed. So we were forced to invade Iraq without their help to enforce a resolution that they initially helped to create. It was only later on after the March 2003 operations that we discoverd why. They were engaged in backroom deals with Saddam to buy oil and supply weapons and nuclear information. When we outed them for it, they turned to the world and accused us of conducting an illegal war.

As far as I'm concerned, based on their past record, France is our enemy. They sure as hell are not our allies. Allies don't lure you into unwinable fights in Vietnam or backstab you in the UN to keep their backroom deals intact. They can't even keep their own house in order but expect us to be saints and help them out whenever they ask for it. The people there are as much to blame for it as the government because enough time has passed that the idiots in charge should have all died of old age, leaving fresh people to take their places.

The next time they come crying for our help I say we let them twist in the wind.

Conner,

I honestly could care less about anything coming out of France anymore. We should impose a total embargo on everything they sell to us as punishment for abandoning us over the years.

Dude, you're not French any more than I am Irish or Italian, and I don't have to look further than grandparents for that ancestry.


Did I say that what they do is ok? I don't think so. My point was that you are rather selective in enforcing your policy of whom to hate due to doing what everybody does. Just as you are in the below points:


Unlike the USA, of course, who, as we all know, were very involved and gung-ho against Hitler before Dec 7 1941. The appeasement blame lies with everybody, and if you want to speak of only neighbors, at least equally between the French and British.


Doesn't look like our military did much better. Besides, we were the ones who wanted to continue the fight, due to containing communism and "domino effects" and whatnot. It would seem that we were unable to learn the lessons of e.g. Dien Bien Phu.


My my, you certainly need to brush up on your history regarding "past record"... how much history do you know?

What's interesting about your position is that you assume that an ally is somebody who does whatever you want no matter what. The day an ally tells you they disagree, you go ballistic saying that they are scum and your "enemy".

I knew that was your "personal reason" for not wanting to deal with the hosting provider...

Wow. David. You sure can jump to some pretty radical conclusions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I suppose you know who assassinated Kennedy and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried too?



Um. No. That's you putting words into my mouth again. France didn't just "disagree" with us one day. You seem to have conveniently excluded the fact that they got caught with their pants down engaging in corruption and making backroom deals to assure Saddam we wouldn't be able to "legally" invade Iraq. I don't know, but that seems like decidedly more than a simple disagreement on policy. When you knowingly act to protect an enemy, you are no longer acting as an ally. You're acting as a traitor. Yes, there's that word again. I assure you it's properly applied in this case.

Their cowardice in Vietnam and their lack of action prior to World War II are just prior ongoing history that shows they lack honor.

Oh, and yes. We should have stayed out of WWII. In fact, up until Pearl Harbor that's exactly what we were doing. Hitler and Germany were Europe's problem. They chose not to deal with it. Why should we have cared? It was only because of the Japanese that we threw down and kicked the crap out of all of them. Japan attacked us. We declared war. Germany declared war on us. We declared war on them. They left us no choice. So we finished what all those pansies over there let get started. That real enough for you?

... huh? Are you talking about the hosting provider? If you think everything coming out of France should be put under embargo, how is at all unreasonable to assume that is why you don't want to use a French company ...? Seems that you just don't like being so completely transparent about it...


I assume you realize that "one day" is a figure of speech. You've only mentioned the current Iraq war. Seems awfully narrow-sighted to me.


Sure; it's real enough proof that you're just singling out France for bashing, and without really knowing your history, to boot.

I'll be up front with you: I have zero interest in discussing further your hatred of the French. So don't expect a reply from me re: the French if you reply.

An embargo on France only collaterally includes any internet providers they run. If you'll recall, I didn't say anything about France. I specifically said overseas - now unless France is the only thing out there across the big blue Atlantic, I think that covers a pretty wide area of the entire planet. Of which France is just one country. So you can take your rampant speculation and shove it.



The Iraq war is all I need. When they violated UN trade restrictions, along with Germany, to supply Iraq with resources, and were working in secret to help them build a "peaceful" nuclear program, along with buying oil for cash - which was strictly prohibited as part of the myriad of sanctions imposed on them by the UN, and then turn and openly state they're going to block a vote in the security council to take action against Iraq in enforcement of an existing UN resolution, then yes. I call foul and label them as our enemy. They took an active stance directly against our interests, and were directly engaged in criminal activities in aid of our enemy. That's way beyond a simple disagreement.

So you can take your pompous attitude and blow it out your ass. Ignorant jackasses like you are why I can't stand dealing with the left wing. You accuse people of not knowing their history, when it's right there in front of you, and anyone can look it up. That says loads about what kind of character you have. Then to cop out and say you have no further interest in discussing my hatred of a country which has backstabbed us and make out like you've been somehow wounded by this is just plain ridiculous. If you have nothing to back yourself up with at least have the guts to say so instead of trying to twist the argument into something you know is a lie.