freeman

I would suggest they’re more in touch with the science.

How so?

It haunts science, we know we must do it for the benefit of humanity, but with the knowledge - the powerful and capital will use it for themselves.

The solution is not halting technological advancement(especially medical technology) but to try and change our political systems.

A baby (and more people after) not dying is an afterthought to you, you are mostly concerned with a fucking SciFi flick not coming true somehow.

Grow up, seriously.

This tech will save and improve a lot of peoples' lives. It will be also be used frivolously by the rich to 'improve' (or actually fuck up) themselves just like they use current medical tech. Meanwhile some poorer people that need it to survive will be denied it.

These are political issues, long existing, not problems with this medical development.

but there is no compromise possible between „a national flag" and „no national flag". And there is probably no right or wrong.

Yes there is. Allow flags of persecuted nationalities, ban flags of nations commiting genocide, do whatever you want with the rest.

Of course since their nationality is not threatened it us easy for them to take this "nationality bad" enlightened position.

Bombs and cars possibly. Poison with very favorable conditions maybe. Bats and machetes no.

Bomb are illegal, of course you can create bombs with materials legally acquired. Still way more complex than shooting, the Columbine shooters' bombs failed to explode, their guns did not.

Cars can be deadly as well but they have way more important alternative uses to firearms. They also are not as commonly used to attack people as guns where both are readily available.

The cause is not the weapon, yet with firearms the same person would be able to hurt more people.

They are not that cheap compared to just a jet (F-16@70m, F-35@100m) but pilots cost a lot and not just money.

They also must have a much smaller mission cost due to fuel efficiency. Provided they do not get shot down.

It certainly wasn't designed to survive against serious opposition and I doubt mere countermeasures would change that. It would probably increase costs more and would be useless in most missions.

If you can shoot any aircraft at a given attitude you can shoot this type of drone. It's not fast, has no stealthy design and its not even small like some other drones.

This is a Linux community not a professional art/design community.

I figure that since proprietary software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code.

Yes but the spirit of FOSS is clearly anti-copyright and a non copyright world would be preferable.

You don’t get to just do whatever you please with someones work.

The FOSS positions is that you should if you are not preventing that someone doing what he wants as well (or anybody else), which is the case with IP unlike real property.

It's also how the world has worked for millennia, copyright and other IP law is relatively new phenomenon and even in the time it has existed it has not been as well enforced or accepted by society as say the concept of physical property.

AI is a great chance for commercial interests to push pro-copyright positions with a narrative of big bad tech corpos (absolutely true) vs little artist guy (bullshit, it's big bad media corpos). I remember they tried to portray copyright and associated enforcement tooling (DMCA etc) as a solution to revenge porn, to rehabilitate it's image.

She had an 'association'.

Like, maybe the evil lady was at some point a co-worker or a neighbor or said hello to a gang member.

She had an association, ethnicity. That's good enough for the right.

If we absolutely need this work we should pay somebody to do it. Also set up some quality requirements and guarantees of the task being completed.

Smoooooth.

In general fighters with buddy refueling are not called air tankers. You are going to cry semantics, it's not. See you claimed that with one(!) carrier you can get 900 fighter aircraft able to launch missions from continental US to Europe. Also claimed that this is what allows strategic bombers to reach Russia from the US.

But that's not possible, fighters do routinely travel across the Atlantic for repositioning. They are refueled multiple times along the way by purpose build tankers (based on airliners) that carry multiple times more fuel and are themselves not efficient. It's obvious you can't support hundreds worth of fighter missions with carrier borne fighters (that number less). The capability exist so the Navy can operate on it's own if needed (cutting into it's attack/defense capability). When the US conducts major operations Navy jets refuel from land based air tankers.

Obviously strategic bombers don't refuel from F-18s, they also have much bigger range (without refueling) than fighters since they were actually designed to operate over oceans.

I unfortunately do not believe there was a misunderstanding on terms such as 'tanker' but a purposeful misrepresentation.

In regards to landings: I never said there was no use for them in the modern battlefield. I've argued that you cannot, having no previous foothold, successfully invade a continent that also has tanks and air force, artillery etc. Not all wars are against such opponents (after all the US never planned to invade Western Europe, it shouldn't have to). In particular islands usually do not have heavy equipment (tank, artillery) because it is difficult to move them elsewhere if needed. Or in a scenario where you already have forces or allies fighting the enemy landing a force that can move quickly in a location that doesn't have to be a port/airbase can be a huge advantage.

Russia certainly pondered the airlift into enemy airbase in Kiev the very first day. The takeover operation went well, the didn't actually go through with the airlift because the main "blitz" push to Kiev trafficked jam into itself. I doubt even if the aircraft came, they could have a serious effect, maybe they could evacuate their initial force, they didn't even do that.

In regards to EU air defenses vs Iraqi ones.. Iraq used Soviet equipment, European forces used US and EU made equipment, I suppose some later EU countries have had Soviet/Russian equipment though most of it must have been given to Ukraine by now. I remember criticism of not employing tactics correctly (no shoot and scoot) compared to say Serbians later on. Also AAA was a big factor.

There is no way Iraq could be considered a peer to the US, it had a big army but was completely outclassed and outnumbered in the air offering no resistance.

The latest in long range EU SAM is Aster missile based systems, there are also smaller ranged new systems based on Mica, IrisT (those are derived from A2A missiles). And of course air defense is also a task of fighter jets.