Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday February 02 2018, @10:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the 1-out-of-3-isn't-so-good dept.

Demonstrating again that anti-missile missiles work best under carefully controlled circumstances, a test of such a weapon fired from Hawaii has missed its target.

The US$30 million test was fired from the Kauai Aegis Ashore site in Hawaii. It was supposed to see a SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missile intercept a target representing an incoming missile that was launched from an aircraft.

The US Pacific Command, contacted by CNN, confirmed that a test took place but not the outcome, saying only that the test took place on Wednesday morning.

The Raytheon SM-3 Block IIA is a joint US-Japan development built to provide a defence against medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

Defense News noted that without further information from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) it's impossible to know whether the problem was in the interceptor, the targeting radar, or the Raytheon-developed Aegis weapons system used by the US Navy was at fault.

Additional Coverage at DefenseNews and USNI News.

The Raytheon SM-3 Block IIA Interceptor.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @11:02AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @11:02AM (#631947)

    Just push the damn button already.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 02 2018, @12:08PM (2 children)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday February 02 2018, @12:08PM (#631960) Homepage Journal

      I don't press a button, I talk to a guy over the phone. On the biggest phone you've seen in your life. And that guy talks to the folks -- a lot of folks -- who press the buttons. Sounds complicated, it's not. I make a phone call on the very special phone, and I say it's time to press those buttons. We have so many people, their only job is to press those buttons when I order them to. Every day they wait for my order, all day long. And some at night, they stay up all night waiting for my call. Just sitting by the phone, waiting for that moment when they push the buttons. So beautiful, they live for that moment! And believe me, that's going to be an American moment.

      My predecessors left our nuclear arsenal much weaker than it was 50 years ago. Don't worry, we're making it very strong again. And we're also building up our anti-nuclear, our anti-missiles. These are very special. We send an anti-nuclear missile, it goes up against somebody else's missile, they cancel out. We get our anti-nuclear working perfectly, we can cancel out a lot of our enemies' nuclear. It makes them weaker. It's new stuff, it has a new digital that needs working out. But my Generals say it's almost perfect. And when it's perfect we're going to build a lot of it. We're going to go very heavy on the anti-nuclear. Until we can cancel out everybody else's nuclear -- Little Rocket Man, President Putin, my friends President Xi and President Macron if we have to. And many more. Which is why I said to Congress, tear down that Sequester. End the Defense Sequester. So we can Make America Great Again.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:10PM (#632013)

        I don't press a button, I talk to a guy over the phone.

        A rotary phone? :-)

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 02 2018, @08:13PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday February 02 2018, @08:13PM (#632139) Homepage Journal

          They gave me a little card, when it's time to talk on the very special phone I put the card in a slot. Easy stuff, and believe me, I'm very good at putting things in slots. There's no problem there, I guarantee it. But there's a guy here to help me with it.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Friday February 02 2018, @01:01PM (5 children)

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 02 2018, @01:01PM (#631974)

      Perhaps somebody used an anti-anti-missile missile missile on the anti-missile missile.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday February 02 2018, @01:52PM (1 child)

        by Gaaark (41) on Friday February 02 2018, @01:52PM (#631989) Journal

        How many missiles could an anti-missile missile missile if an anti-missile missile could missile an anti-missile missile?

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday February 02 2018, @11:40PM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Friday February 02 2018, @11:40PM (#632250) Homepage

          It looks like you dropped a missile there, behind the second "anti-missile missile". Oops, there goes North Korea.

          --
          Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Bobs on Friday February 02 2018, @05:13PM (2 children)

        by Bobs (1462) on Friday February 02 2018, @05:13PM (#632057)

        Funny.

        But that is one of the key problems with anti-missile tech: the counter measures are simpler, cheaper and readily available.

        And we have trouble hitting things during rigged demos with no counter-measures.

        Now imagine the effective intercept rate when they add in simple stuff like chaff, balloons, decoys, etc.
        Then active counter-measures like jamming, spinning the system, etc.

        Personally, if I was trying to get thru a working anti nuke-missile system and it absolutely, positively had to get there, I would blow one (or more) early to blind the sensors, and then the rest, a little behind, should be in the clear.

        Everybody loses in a nuclear war.

        FYI:

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 03 2018, @12:58AM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 03 2018, @12:58AM (#632279) Journal

          And we have trouble hitting things during rigged demos with no counter-measures.

          Actually the record is pretty good. [missiledefenseadvocacy.org]

          What a lot of people don't realize is that we are simultaneously bringing on line a wide variety of anti-missiles.

          Navy (mostly) "Standard Missiles" of several vintages,
          Ground Based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
          Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)

          Of these the GMD has the worst record at just over 50%, but it is also the most ambitious.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:18AM

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:18AM (#632285) Journal

            The Euro countries are testing too. Their record is here [missiledefenseadvocacy.org] .

            However, they are concentrated almost solely on point defense (similar to THAAD) of a city or a ship rather than a mid-course destruction.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:18PM (#632015)

      mebbe reboot?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @04:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @04:46PM (#632046)

      I concur.

      The "liberal" side of the elite's One Party (the D team) is champing at the bit for World War 3. They are doing everything they can to cause World War 3 with BRICS. The "conservative" side of the elite's One Party (the R team) has the role here of normalizing nuclear warfare with the upcoming assault on North Korea.

      It could be that, perhaps, North Korea, in light of the absolute travesty of human misery, oppression, and just general evil over there, needs some liberatin'. But the elites have had decades to step in and end the horrors. They did not. Now only when they are moving towards World War 3 are they interested in some liberatin'. Perhaps, also, they're interested in liberatin' now because of how it will ruffle China and Russia's feathers. Yet another provocation for World War 3, nothing more. The elites don't give a shit about the human fucking beings who have the grave misfortune of being born in the one country on Earth most like hell.

      tl;dr just push the damn button already. Let's get World War 3 fucking started. I want to see some fucking mushroom clouds. I want to see this horrible species wipe itself off the fucking planet.

      I'm not worried about the Earth. Men go and come, but Earth abides. The Planetary Goddess was around perhaps 500,000,000 to over a billion or even 2 or 3 billion years before humans, and She will be better off for the departure of humans, so that She might set to work giving the evolution of life capable of high technology another shot.

  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday February 02 2018, @11:10AM (10 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday February 02 2018, @11:10AM (#631948)

    Lasers! The only solution.

    • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @11:21AM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 02 2018, @11:21AM (#631949) Journal

      Guns work. Plain old projectile weapons.

      Given a missile, with redundant targeting capabilities. Give it radar, infrared, and magnetic anomaly detection. If the radar fails to lock on a target, the infrared takes over. If the infrared fails, then it falls back to magnetic detection. Now, you are out in the middle of a vast ocean, aboard a floating mass of iron and aluminum. Guess what that damned missile is going to lock onto when the magnetics take over? Uh-huh - first guess is right!

      Our guns were always at the ready when a missile was launched. And, we knocked the bird down, every time.

      I don't believe that you will ever hear anyone bragging about the Tartar missile system - but if you do, ask them how many birds they had to shoot down.

      NOTE: I'm talking about a 5" 54 caliber dual purpose naval gun - not an M-14 or some such.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Friday February 02 2018, @11:36AM (5 children)

        by ledow (5567) on Friday February 02 2018, @11:36AM (#631951) Homepage

        I think it's a different problem.

        Given thousands and thousands of square kilometres of empty air, detecting something moving might be relatively easy.

        But how do you have anything close enough to it, that can be authorised and launch quickly enough, that can then catch it up (wherever it may be within range) and get close enough to it that it can remove the threat? Even if it's dumb and just travels in a boring predictable trajectory, that's like trying to catch a tiny ball that someone drops through your open fist without knowing when they're going to do it.

        It's a logistics problem, not a technical one. If your radar covers a 1000 miles radius, say, and you have to authorise and launch and then travel at "missile speed + a bit more" and travel an average of 500 miles to get to it, it's no easy feat to have ANYTHING ready in time. Let alone then lock onto one of the world's fastest moving objects which is trying its best to evade you and destroy it before it can get anywhere interesting.

        Some naval gun - even the one that fires a million rounds a minute - isn't going to be able to cover that kind of range effectively enough and fast enough, unless it literally goes over their heads. A missile itself isn't going to be able to catch up another fast-moving missile with accuracy enough to get close to explode it. Any plane intercepting has the same problem. Any kind of beam weapon suffers greatly from the inverse square law (yeah, you aren't going to shoot it down from a satellite and if you have a Megawatt laser you still need to be quite close).

        Sure, we can do demos and take out things that are threats to the weapon doing the shooting itself, but protecting thousands of square km of ocean (not least what happens if it makes land and you then have to deal with all kinds of other obstacles between you and it) constantly against unpredictable attacks of single fast-moving incoming missiles is no easy task. We've lost HUGE PLANES in that kind of arena, never to be traced. Detecting, tracking, approaching and destroying a cruise missile in time is going to be nigh-on impossible.

        The "four minute warning" was a famous phrase but it was always bunk, we would literally never have that much time. It's also far too short a window to do much about anything at all.

        Certainly a "one-shot-kill" of an incoming missile stands little chance of success on its own.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 02 2018, @12:57PM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 02 2018, @12:57PM (#631971) Homepage Journal

          That's how a fighter pilot who scrambled during the Cuban Missile Crisis referred to his jet's nuclear antiaircraft missile.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday February 02 2018, @02:34PM (3 children)

          by bradley13 (3053) on Friday February 02 2018, @02:34PM (#632004) Homepage Journal

          Most of your points are valid, but I think a couple of problems are not as bad as you think:

          "A missile itself isn't going to be able to catch up another fast-moving missile"

          That's absolutely true, which is why that's not generally the goal. The goal is to meet the other missile, while travelling basically in the opposite direction. Which is entirely possible, but it gives you an extraordinarily short interception window. And the high relative speed means that you have almost no time to correct your trajectory, if anything goes wrong.

          ...protecting thousands of square km of ocean (not least what happens if it makes land and you then have to deal with all kinds of other obstacles between you and it) constantly against unpredictable attacks

          You may not know if or when a missile is incoming, but you normally are defending a defined patch of dirt (or water). If the other missile wants to do you harm, it must enter your range. If it doesn't enter your range, you can safely ignore it. This simplifies the problem of defense considerably.

          Note that this wasn't trying to knock down a cruise missile, but rather a ballistic missile. There was no surprise involved - they knew the shot was coming, and from where. As such, it's pretty embarrassing that they missed. AFAIK, in the only successful test of this system, the target actually sent out continuous active telemetry: "here I am, I'm travelling X m/s, in direction Y, at altitude Z, please shoot me".

          Who wants to bet it's a yummy "cost plus" contract, too - so no loss to Raytheon even when they screw the pooch. Aaaaannnddd - yes: $66,441,462 sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee modification for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) integration, test, and Aegis Ashore support under the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA contract... The modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $2,073,834,069" [defense.gov] Yummy stuff, if you can get it: a few million here, a few million there, all cost-plus, and pretty soon you've raking in a couple of $billion. It's almost better if it never works, because you can always propose another contract to fix it.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 02 2018, @10:50PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 02 2018, @10:50PM (#632218) Journal

            As you say, Ledow made some good points - but your view of the situation is closer to the bull's eye. If we can't shoot down our own missiles, what chance to we have of killing a hostile missile? Given the parameters of the test, a navy destroyer could have been positioned to intercept with guns.

            This test would also have been a good test for the new rail guns. :^)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 03 2018, @12:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 03 2018, @12:36AM (#632272)

            Of course it's a cost-plus contract. It's not a question of money-grubbing, it's the nature of this being R&D type work.

            This is a huge unknown project, to the point that people in chat are even questioning if it is technically possible. If they were to make this a fixed-cost contract, nobody would even try to do it. No company would be willing to risk failure on such a huge known, so the government willing to accept the risk of failure (read: pay the ongoing and increasing costs of failure) because they want the system enough. If you want to complain, complain about the decision makers wanting to get the device in the first place, not the means by which they are trying to procure it.

            As for it being a sole-source contract, I cannot defend that. I can name at least three contracting companies who would be able to perform this, so I don't know why this would be sole-source except for corruption.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:21AM

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:21AM (#632287) Journal

            AFAIK, in the only successful test of this system, the target actually sent out continuous active telemetry: "here I am, I'm travelling X m/s, in direction Y, at altitude Z, please shoot me".

            You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:09AM

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:09AM (#632284) Journal

        Magnetic detection of mostly aluminum rockets?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Friday February 02 2018, @11:58AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 02 2018, @11:58AM (#631956) Journal

      Lasers! The only solution.

      ENOSHARK - core dumped.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @01:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @01:12PM (#631975)
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 02 2018, @02:20PM (7 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 02 2018, @02:20PM (#632002)

    Life Magazine September 29, 1967 : Cover - ABM defense test : fired from California, ICBM re-enters atmosphere over Kwajalein.
    Exclusive interview with Secretary McNamara regarding the new ABM system.
    Crime - Louisiana Governor McKeithen and D.A. Garrison offer resignations over exposure of the Mob. Close-up of animal TV star trainer Ivan Tors. Science - Brucker survival capsule. Surprising progress of Negro education since integration. After Israeli-Arab war, over a million Arab refugees search for a home. Wall Streeter Jack Dreyfus financed broad research on depression and anxiety drug DPH. Youth - 29 groups compete in the Battle of the Bands in Braintree Mass, the Gents from Utah win the competition. Movies - Barbara Streisand in "Funny Girl" profile of bad fashion choices and" Swan Lake" spoof.Back page humor photo - dump truck ready to dump it's load on a city worker.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 02 2018, @02:39PM (6 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 02 2018, @02:39PM (#632009)

      The long-time dream of US military brass has been to be able to nuke other countries without being nuked in response. Hence the ABM efforts, and also why ABM was delayed a bit during the Cold War because it was banned by SALT treaties with the Soviets.

      I don't blame them for having a hard time, though: Hitting an object moving at 6500 m/s with another object moving even faster than that is a hard thing to pull off.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:41PM (#632024)

        It's also a lot harder to hit it coming at you with a 2x closing speed than it is to catch it from behind.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:22AM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 03 2018, @01:22AM (#632289) Journal

          No, its not.

          Its almost impossible to catch it from behind.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday February 02 2018, @03:58PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 02 2018, @03:58PM (#632032)

        And no doubt hence things like the Russian "salted tsunami" nuclear torpedo whose existence I believe I heard had been confirmed recently. Their subs apparently have us pretty thoroughly outclassed, and while a torpedo has severely restricted targeting options, the majority of "interesting" targets are well within reach of a nuclear tsunami. Enough of them at least to provide a very strong incentive for us not to go picking a fight, even if we were confident we could reliably shoot down 100% of their ICBMs.

      • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday February 02 2018, @04:13PM (1 child)

        by crafoo (6639) on Friday February 02 2018, @04:13PM (#632039)

        I really hope that's not their motivation. That would be extremely destabilizing and likely push us into a global war.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @04:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @04:46PM (#632045)

          Nuclear is not an attack weapon? Punishment ala Japan, yes. Last stand ala Yisrael, yes. Taking down a former superpower... no.

          if Russia wanted to exterminate usa's civilians, there is no need to use nukes or invade. Maybe larger concentrations of firepower like carrier groups would be reasonable to nuke eventually... But actual CONUS will never come under nuclear fire, the N-DAY will never happen.

          But there is still hope! :D

          They would use one of the hundreds of biological warfare contingency plans, that were created in Soviet times. The biological weaponry arsenal they had developed then was... glorious. And they never stopped researching.

          This is of course all pure speculation, since i do not have access to this kind of data that is recent.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 02 2018, @04:51PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 02 2018, @04:51PM (#632048)

        It's all a matter of how hard are you willing to hit back at the incoming target? If you can intercept far enough out and are willing to use Tsar Bomba as an intercept warhead, then it's not too difficult...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:12PM (#632014)

    I mean, it would not be called missile if it wouldn't miss, right?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @12:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @12:28AM (#632725)

      wew lad
      Misterile would like to have a few words with you...

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bziman on Friday February 02 2018, @03:34PM (5 children)

    by bziman (3577) on Friday February 02 2018, @03:34PM (#632021)

    This system isn't designed to protect anything. It is designed to extract large amounts of capital from taxpayers, and transfer it to the wealthy. And it's working!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:56PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2018, @03:56PM (#632031)

      Just suck it up.
      The wealthy have got the world cornered, and whatever you do or don't do, they'll get large amounts of capital from everybody else.
      If the tax was left in your pockets, there would be more disposable income in circulation, and the prices would go up, so you would lose that money anyway, perhaps only with some less grumbling. All you are complaining about is that it didn't seem you made them take your money.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday February 02 2018, @04:06PM (3 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 02 2018, @04:06PM (#632036)

        Prices are not determined by the customer's available money - they're determined by the market's available *alternatives*. Doesn't matter how much money you have, if somebody offers the same product at half the price, that's the one most people will buy. In anything remotely resembling a free market, prices reflect manufacturing costs plus just enough profit margin that it's not worth it for the competition to try to undercut your price. In a fictional idealized free market the profit margin is naturally pegged at zero.

        Granted, modern realities only vaguely resemble a free market, but outside of a few highly collusive markets, and those suffering from regulatory capture, there are plenty of alternatives with very low profit margins.

        • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday February 02 2018, @05:43PM (1 child)

          by bradley13 (3053) on Friday February 02 2018, @05:43PM (#632068) Homepage Journal

          Yeah, well about that free market... Look, I'm as libertarian as anyone here, but with things like missile defense systems one does have a legitimate problem: There aren't a lot of potential customers, which means that there aren't a lot of companies competing to enter the market.

          That said, single-supplier cost-plus contracts are an abomination. This is clearly one of those systems where the government doesn't understand that it needs to cut its losses, instead of issuing even more single-supplier cost-plus contracts to fix a system that problem cannot be fixed. But it would be career suicide to tell Congress "oopsie, we wasted $2 billion dollars and 10 years, sorry about that". Probably Congress wouldn't want to hear that either, so they'd fire you and find some yes-man to say "sure, for just another $100 million, we'll fix that right up". And another $100 million, and another, and on it goes. Just like the continuing F-35 boondoggle.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 02 2018, @06:27PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 02 2018, @06:27PM (#632085)

            Oh, I agree completely - but the post I was replying to was saying that leaving money in circulation (rather than funneling taxes into rich-people's pockets) would cause prices to go up and put the money in their pockets anyway. And that's not how even remotely free markets work. Certainly it's going to end up in rich people's pockets regardless, the question is how much good it does before it gets there.

            And no - I'm not actually opposed to taxes, assuming they're spent responsibly. I just hate seeing people so badly misrepresent how markets work - I see the exact same argument a lot against minimum wage increases.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday February 02 2018, @07:01PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 02 2018, @07:01PM (#632108) Journal

          You're neglecting up front costs of entry. If there's a high cost of entry, then a small group of vendors can have a rather high profit, because if someone new tries to enter they can temporarily cut prices below costs to drive them out of business paying for it by using the banked profits they got earlier (and expect to gain later after driving out the new competition). This doesn't even require formal agreements if the current vendors are few enough in number. 2 or 3 is probably the limit before you start needing informal agreements. I'd guess that at around 6 you start needing formal agreements, which would make you a cartel. Proving this, however, can be quite difficult.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by cellocgw on Saturday February 03 2018, @03:47AM

    by cellocgw (4190) on Saturday February 03 2018, @03:47AM (#632341)

    On the bright side, I earned a decent salary (in engineering terms) for over 20 years working on various anti-missile "star wars" bullshit that never worked. Nice life while it lasted.
    (yes I'm being sarcastic. And yes, Star Wars paid my salary)

    --
    Physicist, cellist, former OTTer (1190) resume: https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
(1)