circuscritic

.....you don't have OOBM on every single networked device and terminal? Have you never heard of the buddy system?

You should probably start writing up an RFP. I'd suggest you also consider doubling up on the company issued phones per user.

If they already have an ATT phone, get them a Verizon one as well, or vice versa.

At my company we're already way past that. We're actually starting to import workers to provide human OOBM.

You don't answer my call? I'll just text the migrant worker we chained to your leg to flick your ear until you pick up.

Maybe that sounds extreme, but guess who's company wasn't impacted by the Crowdstrike outage.

Pretty sure those are Mark 14's.

He's basing it on none of that. Newsweek pumps out Biden copium articles like crazy and the same few rotating accounts post every single one of them.

Allies spy on each other, it's not unusual or shocking.

Eventually she will be exchanged as part of some backroom deal, or in exchange for someone imprisoned in SK for providing information to the CIA.

You're operating under the assumption that this "intelligence" is legitimate or being provided in good faith.

If we accept that this intelligence even exists, there is a big difference between a state sanctioned plot, and signal intercepts between a couple hard-line officers blowing smoke up each other's asses.

All recent events show that Iran has consistently acted with restraint and moderation when dealing the theat of American military escalation.

Color me skeptical that they would blow past all other major escalation paths, and skip straight to one that guarantees a multi-month long air campaign to flatten their entire country, followed by a ground invasion, and occupation.

Iraq may have worked out strategically for Iran because of the cluster fuck that the occupation was, but that doesn't mean they want that for themselves.

This isn't a court of law, or the privatized forced mandatory arbitration that has mostly replaced it.

Out of curiosity, in your view, what has Google done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

The cost per round is a lot more than just power generation when talking about lasers.

The wear on tear on lasers is a lot different than other systems and when the case is being made for their cost effectiveness they need to be factored in, instead of the highly misleading figures that only prices out electricity.

There is no doubt that lasers will play a bigger and bigger role in combat systems, especially in a layered air defense networks.

But it's dishonest how these articles only cite the cost of electricity. It would be like citing the cost of a single shell of artillery to imply that is the only expenditure when the system is used.

Just like a Howitzer, the parts on lasers experience wear and tear, but to replace them cost a hell of a lot more than a new barrel.

Yes, in the long-term lasers will be more cost-effective than ground to air missile interceptors*, but any reporting that is clearly trying to make an argument for cost savings, should have the integrity to get figures that factor in battlefield maintenance of those systems.

*When applicable. Lasers will not remove the need for any existing systems, but will provide a cost savings by providing additional options for the air defense system's operators.

Citation needed.

This copium is off the charts ridiculous.

I don't want Trump to win, which is why I think it's incredibly unhelpful to spread the delusion that current polling is favorable to a Biden victory.

That wasn't even true before the debate, but at least there were enough polls within the margin of error that it was possible.

Biden's polling has only gone down since then, while Trump's have trended upwards. Not by the same margins, but still, opposite directions.

This article is actually arguing about changes in polls that are less than 0.5%, seriously, it's a joke...

Here is an aggregated page that links out to over 50 different polls for Georgia, one of the states mentioned in the article where Trump it's supposedly hurting, according to that article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president-georgia.html

Here's that same aggregated polling information for the other two states mentioned in the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president-michigan.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president-north-carolina.html

Take a look and tell me if that article, much less it's headline, have any bearing on reality.

Wake me when a hemorrhagic fever crosses the Rockies.

Probably a lot less than even the last time they tried this, back in 2022. But if it lasts longer than a month, then they will have made progress.