One consistent theme that threaded through many opinions was the public loss of faith in the equity markets. The loss of confidence was separate from the deficiencies in the underlying economic fundamentals. Market participants lost confidence in issuer reporting accuracy, transparency and level of public disclosure of information. Since federal controls on the issuing and trading of securities were virtually nonexistent at the time, the possibility of fraud and other schemes likely contributed to acceleration of panic.
I see a hierarchy of decision-making levels, roughly as follows from "lowest" to "highest: In a counterinsurgency war, for example, the individual grunt often has to make rules-of-engagement decisions that are essentially political: Level 1 seems almost certain to be automated.
I can easily see all human decision making confined to the bridge and CIC, with turrets operated by some mix of automation and remote control. And — depending on range, light lag, and other comms factors — the turrets might well detach from the ship and maneuver in formation, still controlled from bridge and CIC.
In other words, combat drones at least partly controlled from a mother ship. Levels 4 and 5 are a much taller order.
I have speculated, though, on what I call the "legate" concept, in which the only human decision-makers are essentially policy representatives of the government.
The only military orders a legate gives are, in effect "authorized to fire" and "cease firing. Level 6 can only be automated if you have fully sentient AI that not only can vote, but be elected or functional equivalent. Level 3 is also pretty dicey — however, depending on your specific tech assumptions, remote control may well be viable at this level.
For example, in my setting combat is at ranges on order ofkm, but unfolds as a slow pavane, with maneuver and firing taking place on a scale of hours. Now, how does all this relate to "space fighters" in the usual sense? Whether space fighters are viable depends on two things: First, are vest-pocket space warcraft of any value at all, and if so, do they benefit substantially from having humans on board, rather than being either automated or controlled by remote operators or some combination.
They could go ten times faster than any ship, though they could not heave-to even for a moment. If beam weapons are dominant, miniature space warcraft seem pretty useless whether crewed or uncrewed — their small size must limit their weapon installations to peashooters, useless against large ships.
If kinetics are dominant, small warcraft may be viable if useful missiles are even smaller so that they can carry a few — and especially if one hit one kill is the rule, so that a bigger ship is merely a richer target.
However, then the question is whether these small platforms need an onboard crew, or can be handled by a combination of remote control and onboard expert-system AI. Majority of arguments below are based on a realistic hard scifi setting.
In softer settings you can probably invent any Applied Phlebotinum or Minovsky Physics needed to support or refute the plausibility of starfighters. There is no need to wrangle over the differences between bombers, fighters and other subtypes.
While an inductive argument is not foolproof, there is some evidence in military history that defense will often lag behind offense. Armor Is Uselessin other words.
Look at, say, how infantry armor was abandoned for quite a while due to the impracticality of the thickness needed to protect against advanced guns, or how modern carriers need to use active defenses to intercept incoming missiles rather than being able to just weather them.
Extending from this, future space combat scenarios may involve spacecraft firing at each other with weapons they cannot survive.Free Essays on Technology Simplifies Modern Life Argue Against Statement. Get help with your writing.
|Introduction||For reasons to be discussed later, limitations in their mathematical framework initially made the theory applicable only under special and limited conditions.|
1 through We’ve Got Lots of Free Essays. Words of Wisdom: "I hope you find the essay you need and ROCK ON" - Salmon Essays on Technology Simplifies Modern Life Argue Against Statement.
Technology Simplifies Modern Life Argue.
The Drake equation amounts to a summary of the factors affecting the likelihood that we might detect radio-communication from intelligent extraterrestrial life.
It's a well-known principle, but it goes against the nature of organizations who wish to solve all their problems with one project.
In consumer markets, it encourages the disease I call featuritis. Design Research versus Technology and Meaning Change Human-Centered Design, I argue, is essential for incremental improvement of products.
There were unfortunately no conservative or pro-life scholars at this meeting who might have pushed back against this technological boosterism and callous disregard for unborn human life. Apr 15, · It’s difficult, however, to argue against a technology that could save lives.
A passenger on a derailed train in recently told the Chicago Tribune, "I think somebody’s life is a lot more. Blockchain technology simplifies and streamlines this entire process, providing an automated trade lifecycle where all parties in the transaction would have access to the exact same data about a trade.