From the article:
> Through Swarm, Spangelo [CEO] sought to develop and launch a constellation of at least 100 small satellites.
1,627 karma · joined October 29, 2015
> Through Swarm, Spangelo [CEO] sought to develop and launch a constellation of at least 100 small satellites.
Radar also suffers from atmospheric attenuation, so there's a tradeoff between frequency, power, wavelength, etc.
I don't know what systems they're using to track LEO objects, but it's certainly within the realm of reasonable.
A decent primer: http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/Seminars/RadarFundamentals.pdf
"Son, do your chores please."
"Yes, sir."
Done.
Discretion is everything. Any time we'd hit a compound, we would pore over the intelligence, assess whether this was a likely badguy, whether they were a key player or just a low level radical, etc.
Equally important, are the people around said badguy likely also bad or innocent bystanders? If they're probably bad we want to capture them all together. If they're probably innocent we want to wait until the dude wanders off to minimize the risk to civilian life and property, even if that means greater risk to us.
Once you actually get to the target location, it starts all over again, only with less time and information. Is that a shovel or an RPG? I can't quite tell from here. Looks like an RPG -- what if I'm wrong? There's a house behind him, what's the risk if I wait 30 seconds...?
It's a real profession that takes real expertise by people with real emotions.
Tell that to the guys he provided close air support for. I've been on the ground when it comes down. Years later I'm still thankful and it brings tears to my eyes.
Got a great idea? We love it! We'll take 40% of every unit sold. Good luck!
> So he sees everything they do as political as well.
Obviously we have political views, but they're a only subset of religious views. By analogy, geometry exists and is a legitimate field of study. But if you said "all mathematicians think about is geometry" that would be false because it's too narrow in scope. If he's consistent in his Christian worldview "he sees everything they do as religious as well" would have been true.
HN won't let me reply to your next comment, but regarding:
> a reflection of their religious principles or their political ones
This is actually a common misunderstanding and what I'm trying to explain. "Religious principles OR political principles" means there are actually (at least) TWO categories of ideas a person holds, with specific items (homosexuality, death penalty, etc.) falling inside one of those categories.
That's a secular worldview, and it isn't how Christians think. We have one category: God. God is sovereign, he owns everything including me. As Thomas Aquinas said "all truth is God's truth". When we're being consistent (key caveat), we approach all issues as "what does God want me to do?". Political activities follow from there. We often disagree about those secondary conclusions (what God wants from us regarding issue X), but not the core starting point (ultimate allegiance is to God alone).
The Heidelberg Catechism sums it up well:
> Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
> A. That I am not my own, but belong — body and soul, in life and in death — to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
I don't see how that follows.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like you have a chemical addiction. You will not be able to do well for yourself until you conquer this giant.
Seek help, my friend.
$ sudo vim /etc/hosts
Gdd:wq
Drugs are everything. I'd say 90% of these guys are in prison because they were addicted to drugs of various kinds, and it wrecked their lives as they grew desperate to support their habit. Master the drugs, you master the crime.
In fact, I teach a class every week to 33 prisoners, inside the prison itself. Rehabilitation is absolutely the goal.
Not in the way you're thinking. This is at the time when the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. While it was the English nobility that opposed the king, they did so (1) at great risk to their own safety, and (2) as the only ones in a position to do so. Certainly no serf could have accomplished this -- they would have been killed.
Second sentence of the (excellent) Wikipedia article about it:
> First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.
Yikes that statement has a lot of moral overtones. Is it a good idea to use a Yubi? Arguably yes. Does one need to find "excuses" for not doing so? The vast majority of the time, no.
For example...?