When Conservatives talking about reducing the impact of Big Government, this is the kind of thing we are referring to
(Politico) What happens here at the annual Consumer Electronics Show certainly doesn’t stay here, at least not as far as Washington is concerned.
Stuffed into the seemingly endless Las Vegas Convention Center isn’t just a raft of new hi-def televisions, cutting-edge tablets and more — but a sea of federal lawmakers and regulators, many of whom return home leery to learn there’s a gap between the new tech on display and the laws that are supposed to govern their use.
The in-car computers populating the show floor may woo audiences. But they also should remind regulators there’s work to do to ensure the old rules of the road — literally — apply to cars that are as much computers as they are engines.
And the explosion of startups — many of which aren’t device manufacturers but app makers — represents the front lines of many debates over spectrum, e-health policy, venture capital and more now happening on Capitol Hill.
This reminds me of a Ronald Reagan quote
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
In today’s hyper regulatory government-space, we can also add in “if it might move, regulate it”. America is one of the most innovative countries over the past few centuries, yet, Government seems to do all it can to strangle everything with regulation. Sometimes “for your own good”, sometimes simply “because it’s there.”
Reagan tried to ban assault weapons. Blaming the government for strangling the economy is about as lame as blaming the job creators for not creating jobs.
as for fav quotes from Ronniw here is mine
“I have a feeling that we are doing better in the war than the people have been told.”
–Ronald Reagan, in the Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1967
” until now has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this.”
–President Reagan revealing a disturbing view about the “coming of Armageddon,” December 6, 1983
From Regan’s Reign of Error
Spoken like a true Progressive who thinks the Government is God and fails to understand freedom and innovation.
Hey teach, you hear about former Pres Clinton doing his pro-gun control rant at the CES? He called for “technologists” to help bridge the gap between those who believe in guns and those who dont.
Yeah!
Maybe that can stop people from shooting heat seeking bullets!
Theuretical Concept Title: Sensor Fuzed Heat Seeking Bullet
——————————————————————————–
Description: These projectiles have a trajectory like any other bullet but nano-technology sensors and control surfaces deflect their flight path toward the target. Once in or near the target nano-technology projectile fuzes would cause the explosive in the projectile to explode creating a self forging slug towards the target. The sensor would be either a nano-laser transmitter/sensor or infrared sensor looking outward from the axis of the bullet. As the bullet spins the scan pattern generated would create a lethal volume around the bullet. The detonation would be aimed an appropriate number of degrees past the sensor to account for any lag in the fuzing. The seeker and control surfaces would guide by nano-technology control surfaces which would extend and retract to destabilize the flight path of the bullet in response to signals from a nano-focal plane array in the projectile nose.
——————————————————————————–
Advantages: Increased lethality for gun air defense systems and air to air cannons. No longer would weapons operators have to rely on a direct hit (or very close proximity for fragmentation weapons). The use of nano-technology would make this wepon inexpensive and robust.
——————————————————————————–
Countermeasures: The sensors on the projectile might be susceptible to countermeasures such as chaff or flares. Choice of frequency for the sensors and well thought out functional logic will minimize the effect of countermeasures. Additionally, if the algorithim notes the presence of countermeasures, or if the operator does, the special function of the bullet could be disabled and it would behave as a normal bullet. Similarly, a signal past to the projectile while in the gun barrel could do the same.
——————————————————————————–
Commercial Applications: These sensors embedded in industrial machinery could perform self diagnostic functions. The capability to produce nano-technology chips has clear dual use potential.
* Theoretical *
BTW, yes I know the difference between incendiary bullets and heat-seeking bullets. Clerarly the ditzy women discussing that ammo were clueless, and so they just made themselves look foolish.
also, what you are referring to are shells. Either mortar rounds or launched from a shoulder-mount or a cannon.
Um, no, that was not to what I was referring. Google it, dismissing the bullshit articles mixed in with the well-written, informative articles.
I’m still trying to figure out if its just theoretical technology or if there are already heat-seeking bullets fired from high caliber military rifles, the practicality of which seems questionable to me without knowing all of the facts.
I’m more interested, though, in its civilian applications, such as micro diagnostics.
Interesting issues that giticarver has again raised there.
it is scifi theoretical. It is impossible to put trajectory deflecting mechanisms onto a small solid metal object whose sole purpose is to spin really fast, fly straight and impact a target.
Yes, there are vast numbers of potential applications for nanotechnology, but bullets are not one.
BTW, I have known for a while that there are bullets already in use in Afganistan on an experimental basis, which can be fired through or over the top of walls, to then explode on the other sides of walls and kill insurgents behind walls. Darned clever, those clazy Amelicans. :)
“Google it, dismissing the bullshit articles mixed in with the well-written, informative articles.” – Ann
That reminds me: I suspect that that is John’s biggest problem; i.e., when he Googles info, he can’t bring himself to separate the wheat from the chaff rationally, reading only screwy rationales which reinforce his screwy delusions, instead of reading both sides of an issue and evaluating which viewpoint is more plausible. He’s not stupid. Just dense and shallow. Unreceptive to ideas which conflict with his myths, superstitions, fairytales and other ignorant biases.
Must be nice to live in DisneyWorld.
I think you will find your answer in the article you cite:
Advantages: Increased lethality for gun air defense systems and air to air cannons.
Ground defense systems do not use a small caliber (relatively speaking) shells / cartridges. Even in air to air, we are talking 20mm minimum. A .50 cal bullet is less than 2/3 the size of a 20mm bullet.
The point I am trying to make is that the article you cite seems to be for a higher caliber weapon than a soldier would carry. It is not part of a portable weapon system.
Clearly though the representative was not only uninformed, she was clueless yet the reporter never calls her on it. The reporter never says “you are wrong.”
A massive “fail” all around.
Well, if Candy “candy” Crowley taught us anything, it is that reporters REFUSE to call democrats out on anything. Even murder.