- 0 Posts
- 32 Comments
5·9 months agoYea Exact Audio Copy in secure mode will re-read each sector double-checking results until it has a consistent perfect rip. It takes a little while longer, but the results are worth it.
I’ve lived in at least 20 residences across 4 continents and only one of those was from the 1920s.
It still had an original stove.
That stove was the fucking best shit ever. It was amazing. I swear to God I have never been able to cook bacon so amazingly as on that stove top.
I don’t disagree that survivorship bias is a thing. And perhaps I had the best possible option of that era. I mean, yes with an induction top I can do great things. With an MSR dragonfly gas stove I can cook the camp a great breakfast anywhere in the world. I’ve cooked on wood fire stoves. I’ve cooked primitive fires in outback Australia and the himiliaya mountains… But there was something special about that 1920s stove that I’ve won’t ever forget.
Bro,
I have been using Google before 2000
Had an early invite to Gmail. Got mobile search results over text message before smart phones.
Google maps didn’t even launch until 2005.
Some of us went places and did things before Google+
I don’t disagree that if I want to go somewhere I might search g maps.
But the search results are really shit lately.
I miss competition with several web spiders
Yea not everywhere is equipped to do all types of operations.
Shit, in America I know someone that just wants a blood work type test done in the largest city in the State. Can’t even find anyone that knows shit all about the test. Several doctors refused to draw the blood and send it out of state. Test can be done at Johns Hopkins (or other 1st rate places around the globe) but hasn’t trickled down to 50 states yet. Doctors stay in their lane and if you want a specialist at the cutting edge you’ll have to travel even in America.
17·10 months agoI refused an unlawful order once.
It helped that everyone enlisted immediately agreed, but it escalated up the chain of command very quickly after we asked for a written order until it was agreed that it was a miscommunication and never happened.
To be fair they could order you to do a lot and just hope you do the implied, even verbally said, but unwritten thing. But when I was in we had clear training about what was and wasn’t unlawful to prevent abuse. If we had done it and had no proof we were really 100% officially ordered then it could have been pinned on us. Which is why my first response was, is that an order? Followed with citing the written order that said we could not do that thing and asking for a written order to do the thing. Just following orders works both ways.
Remember PhysX back when it was a separate
card Physics Processing Unit before they shoved it on the GPU before they even had multithreading? Yea it evolved. But the original implementation was not ideal.
107·11 months agoWhile proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn’t have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
“the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]”
“While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.”
And that’s before we get into the creative reinterpreting of LOAC for terrorists in non- international armed conflicts fought by non-state insurgent groups which were invented post 9-11.
Shh
Car thieves are a blessing and have to be protected at all costs.
The continued functioning of the government?
Naw lemmy tankies don’t have time for that.
This is America.
If the secret service didn’t use excessive force they would probably be reprimanded!
Let’s not pretend that ranked choiced voting in Oz didn’t elect Tony Abbott, the prototype for Trump’s one liners and spewing hate.
Every answer to whatever question: “Stap the boats”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. But it’s not some silver bullet that will make all the party candidates turn into Jesus.
Wake me when hamas releases the hostages instead of just doubling down on saying we’ll invade again and kill more civilians.
The diplomatic solution requires both sides to lay down their arms and stop attacking each other
You mean the hospital parking lot where the failed Islamic jihad rocket landed?
Did Hamas ask those 34 children to move south or were they murdered at gun point by terrorists?
All war is horrific.
But I’m so tired of hearing about how one side is righteous and innocent and the other is murdering children.
Both sides are engaging in war.
People will die in war.
Those 1,200 Israeli civilians, those 34 children were not “civilian casualties” that refused to evacuate. They were gunned down by over 1500 hamas terrorists in person, face to face.
Does that make it any less horrific that bombs are killing civilians in Gaza? No of course not. But it doesn’t give anyone the moral high ground either. It’s fucking war. Start a fucking war and people are going to die.
Hamas said they would do it again. Israel will operate on the standard for war: remove the attackers ability to fight or their will to fight. Israel is not going to tit for tat try to exchange proporte firepower. Why would they? How does that win a war?
Israel has said it’s mission is to destroy Hamas. I would take Israels word at face value to move south. Hamas never gave Israelis the option to move south before thet invaded.
In both those wars there was a plan for war. But not a plan for peace.
The civilian leadership in Iraq made a choice to send the Iraqi military home with no pay and no plan to do anything but hold up in the green zone as if everything after opening up the war would just turn to roses.
The civilian leadership refused the military leadership’s requests to negotiate with the Iraqi religious leaders calling for violence. To create a plan for peace.
These guns your jerking off over did not bring peace. Nor could they win a war. All they did was create a stalemate.
To plan for peace is a tiny bit harder than telling a few young men to leave the FOB every once in awhile. It involves negotiating with religion, creating win/wins, making sure people have the means to support themselves. Or crushing those that oppose the system. It’s easier if you get the locals to do it for you in exchange for reconstruction for instance in Germany and Japan.
There small local conflicts you’re describing are in places with a long history of tribes fighting other tribes. They are used to that. WWIII will be a flash point conflict among civilians that may not stomach a prolonged conflict and will be more likely to want to negotiate peace.
If coolers heads prevail then peace is possible. If shareholders just want a war that drags on far away and civilian leaders ignore military leadership you end up with the wast of time and money Iraqi and Afghanistan were. The difference is the endgame of politics. Why did the war continue after Osama was caught and killed? What was the objective after that? Why was holding the dirt so important after the enemy had been reduced to a point that could no longer project power behind their hill of dirt?
If getting Osama was the main goal why did we ignore all the Intel that he was across the border in Pakistan for so long? Why did we keep searching where we knew Osama wasn’t? Because Halliburton wanted a prolonged war and the military leadership had no authority to stop the madness, win the war, negotiate peace, and move on after the mission of taking out the terrorist leader Osama was complete. So instead it devolved into holding a hill of dirt for no reason except to line pockets.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn’t have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we’ll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There’s a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It’s called the power of decision. It’s not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It’s about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
It’s a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I’m sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don’t win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they’re playing by other people’s rules. Europe and the West won’t provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won’t give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It’s trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it’ll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren’t going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
This is actually a good question.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
deleted by creator