The Nice Guy At the World's Largest Weapons Expo 180
pigrabbitbear writes "It was the second day of the Special Operation Forces Exhibition in Amman, Jordan, and the temperature outside the convention center was around 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with a typical chance of rain of zero. Drones of various sizes hovered in the hot blue desert sky. Inside, Ed Atchley had set up a booth for his company, Aspen Water Inc., right next to a 30mm chain gun designed to sink things like helicopters and Somali pirate ships. Atchley had traveled from his headquarters in Richardson, Texas, to the largest weapons trade show in the world, mainly because he makes 'the army's smallest, lightest, least expensive, high output, reverse osmosis water purifier,' he says, and people in the Middle East – including soldiers – get very thirsty."
Logistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Napoleon said it better: (Score:5, Insightful)
'An army marches on its stomach.'
'C'est la soupe qui fait le soldat.'
Nothing, absolutely nothing, matters more at winning wars than logistics. The lethal fighting force is but the edge of a vast engineering and distribution network. Or, if it is not the edge of such a network, it is soon a defeated lethal fighting force.
Re:Napoleon said it better: (Score:5, Informative)
I spent six years in the U.S. Air Force flying a desk. To this day people are shocked that the only time I flew on a plane was a civilian airliner, and I never saw combat.
When I was in, the USAF was around 300,000 Airmen. Around 10% was aircrew, which includes: pilots, navigators, crew chiefs, AWACS computer guys, etc. It took the rest of the USAF to handle the rest: feed the troops, get them to where they need to go, ensure their computers were working correctly, tracking millions of bullets, bombs and missiles, tending to medical needs, paychecks, etc.
That's what they call "tail heavy" (Score:3)
The lighter the tail, the better, but too light and the beast dies. It's hard to achieve a good balance, and unfortunately politics plays a role, with all the kingdom building and buying things that need too much maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
In the old days you had the spear-head, the shaft and the person holding it, and the person who made the spear (who could be the same person as the one holding the spear).
Nowadays the "spear head" could be a bomb, behind this "spear head" could be a bunch of FA/18s (and their pilots), an aircraft carrier, with supporting ships, planes, helis (and maybe even a submarine). And it sure takes a lot of people, factories, mi
Re: (Score:2)
I spent six years in the U.S. Air Force flying a desk. To this day people are shocked that the only time I flew on a plane was a civilian airliner, and I never saw combat.
When I was in, the USAF was around 300,000 Airmen. Around 10% was aircrew, which includes: pilots, navigators, crew chiefs, AWACS computer guys, etc. It took the rest of the USAF to handle the rest: feed the troops, get them to where they need to go, ensure their computers were working correctly, tracking millions of bullets, bombs and missiles, tending to medical needs, paychecks, etc.
Hey now, don't forget the hordes of masseuses, pedicurists, HVAC and cable TV technicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now, don't forget the hordes of masseuses, pedicurists, HVAC and cable TV technicians.
At work sometimes I think half of our problems stem from the fact that in the huge wave of cost cutting it has been forgotten that sometimes this kind of stuff pays for itself.
If you want to get work done you need competent employees (a premise that many companies no longer buy into). If you want competent employees then you need to motivate them to show up for work. The biggest motivator is obviously the paycheck, but there are other reasons that people work. If you pay enough, you can hire just about a
Re: (Score:3)
That's because, of all of the [US] armed services, the USAF has the absolute worst tooth-to-tail ratio. It's inherent in the nature of an air force, any air force, but it is an aberration.
Re: (Score:3)
I spent six years in the U.S. Air Force flying a desk. To this day people are shocked that the only time I flew on a plane was a civilian airliner, and I never saw combat.
When I was in, the USAF was around 300,000 Airmen. Around 10% was aircrew, which includes: pilots, navigators, crew chiefs, AWACS computer guys, etc. It took the rest of the USAF to handle the rest: feed the troops, get them to where they need to go, ensure their computers were working correctly, tracking millions of bullets, bombs and missiles, tending to medical needs, paychecks, etc.
Just goes to show how bloated the US military is and how the military budget could stand to take a slashing.
I was going to bring up some figures to show that you are totally wrong and that the ratio has been improving as the military gets leaner, but you are correct. The trend is more and more support troops. According to the military's figures, it is more like 25% fighters, 75% nonfighters, but the Air Force might be skewed a bit since a jet has a lot more power than 1 man on the ground.
Long PDF here [dtic.mil]. Too long for me so I just read the conclusions starting at page 77.
Re:Napoleon said it better: (Score:5, Insightful)
And that logistics has to work under chaotic conditions, which is why the military is so good at humanitarian disaster relief.
Re: (Score:3)
'An army marches on its stomach.'
Ah, so a soldier is just a large gastropod [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, absolutely nothing, matters more at winning wars than logistics
Says who? Morale is #1, even in conventional war, but even more so in the unconventional combat that's been popular lately.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
All the high tech drones ... doesn't mean much if your soldiers starve or run out of water.
No, I'm pretty sure the drones still mean something, especially if you can launch them from a ship offshore and pilot them from an Air Force base in Colorado.
Judo (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, at the weapons show, more of the attendees were probably interested in ways to keep this product out of the hands of "certain people" than buying it for themselves.
Re:Judo (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, at the weapons show, more of the attendees were probably interested in ways to keep this product out of the hands of "certain people" than buying it for themselves.
There's no reason for that. We've offered to assist in the setup nuclear power plants to North Korea in exchange for discontinuing their weapons development program. If we're willing to do that, a few water purifiers is hardly anything to worry about. Besides, I think fresh water is a better diplomat than a Predator drone.
Re:Judo (Score:5, Interesting)
and
Of course it is, but the people at that weapons show are in the war business. They're not looking for "diplomacy" or "development" or "peace".
Their business is killing, and as the famous Stoic philosopher Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Raine said, "brother, business is a-boomin'."
Re: (Score:3)
Every soldier who dies of thirst is one less solder who can die from the latest missile technology.
I'd think arms dealers would be highly supportive of water purifiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Their business is killing,
Their business is protecting and saving lives, which sometimes means having overwhelming firepower. Mutually Assured Destruction was the most successful peace policy ever. Don't assume that everything we send into a war zone is meant to either kill, or die. That kind of thinking is 20+ years out of date.
Re: (Score:2)
You know who "protects and saves lives"? Medical personnel, doctors, nurses, firemen, police. Armies do the bidding of the most powerful, which almost always means some very bad days for regular people.
You can dress it up with all the lovely rhetoric you want, but if you listen to the sales pitches, read the brochures, of all that great "protecting, life-saving" hardware at a weapons show, you'll hear about killing people, hurting people, depriving them of life
Re: (Score:2)
You know who "protects and saves lives"? Medical personnel, doctors, nurses, firemen, police.
Your police must be magical. Where I live, they kill people for holding things like screwdrivers, bags of skittles, or picket signs.
Armies do the bidding of the most powerful, which almost always means some very bad days for regular people.
If by "regular people" you mean "armed insurgents", yes.
You can dress it up with all the lovely rhetoric you want, but if you listen to the sales pitches, read the brochures, of all that great "protecting, life-saving" hardware at a weapons show, you'll hear about killing people, hurting people, depriving them of life.
"Please hold still while I murder you with this water purifier."
We say it to make the young men and women who do the fighting and end up dying or being mutilated feel better,
Er, people who are dead can't be made to feel better... or anything for that matter.
but all that business about "protecting liberty" and "fighting for our freedom" is just a canard.
Yeah, it's true... everyone loves America. We're like a big purple dinosaur that sings love songs in the international community. No need to defend ourselves... who'd ever atta
Re: (Score:2)
"Defense sector workers"? Is that what they're calling it these days?
Anyway, I was aiming my remarks more at the people who profit from war than those who fight. As usual in the modern era, the ones who profit from war and the ones who fight war are not overlapping groups.
Wait a minute, you're saying tw
What we need... (Score:3, Funny)
Is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators!
Which was more important... (Score:5, Interesting)
...the stillsuit or the lasgun?
Re:Which was more important... (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither. The spice (aka oil aka energy).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he used politics and enforcing an artificial monopoly that was wasteful for his own political purposes. not sure if herbert was using it as an analogue to something..
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I liked the other books, read them all.
They are good, not great.
Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
The Nicest Guy At the World's Largest Weapons Expo
If you want to publicise the work of some actual nice guys, what about those people who go into warzones simply to provide this kind of facility (some even do it for free, the gall of these people!) to those who are suffering because they happen to live in the middle of a war they want no part in?
not 80 degrees Fahrenheit! (Score:4, Funny)
fuck it tapped 100 a few times here in the states last week, besides why is this guy nice? Cause he wants to sell technology to any army that pays him enough, well just call him Jesus fucking Saint Humanity!
Is all military bad? (Score:3)
It is funny how people think that all military forces are bad. While it would be nice if there was absolutely no military forces in the world but that will never happen. It is human nature to want something someone else has and to want to protect what one has (which can soon morph into we have these forces and they have what we want). In every conflict there is at least one aggressor and at least one defender. In general I side with the defenders; taking land by force is wrong. In my mind the defending force are the good guys. They too need armaments and ammunition which is why I see not issues with military expos.
Whether or not a military force is a good or bad this is a moot point. It is how the people, through their elected officials, use their military forces on other countries that matters. As examples: North Korea, pretty bad; Canada damn good.
most people dont have elected leaders (Score:2)
and most military expos are not about selling protection to democracies.
selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose. we still do it.
selling weapons to dictators has no legitimate diplomatic purpose, other than enabling one to kill a bunch of people from another. in the cold war, you could argue that was meaningful. the cold war is over. what is the argument now?
Re: (Score:3)
"selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose."
Nonsense. If I'm defending a fixed position, I want a line of mines in front of me. Why? So it's harder for any attackers to overrun us, and kill not only us but whoever/whatever we're trying to protect. Mines are very effective for that.
They have absolutely legitimate military use. The problem is when they're left behind and kill civilians. Or worse, when a regime plants them throughout farm fields so they can't be worked as a way to cause starvation.
Re: (Score:3)
"selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose."
Nonsense. If I'm defending a fixed position, I want a line of mines in front of me. Why? So it's harder for any attackers to overrun us, and kill not only us but whoever/whatever we're trying to protect. Mines are very effective for that.
They have absolutely legitimate military use. The problem is when they're left behind and kill civilians. Or worse, when a regime plants them throughout farm fields so they can't be worked as a way to cause starvation.
I'm very much with GP and against you on this. "The problem is when they're left behind and kill civilians" is true but a smoke screen. They're pretty much ALWAYS left behind where they kill and maim innocents, for generations. They take minutes to deploy but years to clear. You deploy now with the full expectation that you will be committing egregious human rights violations in the future. Where we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is obviously different in peacetime and at
Re:most people dont have elected leaders (Score:4, Informative)
Since 2004 the US has been eliminating the "dumb" antipersonnel mines in its arsenal. The ones left are electrically detonated and deactivate at a preset time, or ultimately when the batteries run out.
Mines are so useful that the reality is, they will be used. And manufactured locally if they have to be.
If you make it impossible for countries that can make the mines with time deactivation (or degradable components for the same end) to sell them, then what you will have for sale are those made by those who don't care. (And if you say it would be a war crime, I suggest you look at how many heads of state have been convicted since Nuremburg. One. Charles Taylor, And that's just in the past few weeks)
That's very good for saying "it's not my fault", but it's hiding your head in the sand as far as reducing the number of situations like the former Yugoslavia and large numbers of long term mines being abondoned.
As I said before, I greatly support putting deactivation systems in mines, and supporting it with treaties restricting the sale and manufacture of dumb mines. That may have some effect as it will mean the more modern type mines will be the ones openly sold.
But a blanket ban just leads to those who won't follow it making their own, or buying them under the table. And guess what. Those won't be self deactivating because dumb mines are dirt cheap to make once you've spent the money to set up a production line.
So, are you for something that might reduce the problem? Or are you for something that probably won't, but will let some people/countries say "it's not my fault"?
Re: (Score:2)
and most military expos are not about selling protection to democracies.
Care to cite any studies on that? Buyers from democratic and non-democratic nations around the world attend these expos. Whether the nation is democratic or not they still need defense What I am trying to say is it how the weapons are used that is the issue..
selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose. we still do it.
There are at least three countries that would not exist without land mines; South Korea, Taiwan and Israel. Land mines have the legitimate purpose of enabling a smaller force to defend against a larger force. Used properly land mines are an asset. Used
Man makes water purifier.. (Score:3)
..tries to sell water purifier.
He considers the target market and decides to try and sell to people who work in places where there is a shortage of water.
What's the story again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Funny)
It's not senseless murder. There is a lot of money to be made. In fact, it is one of the few industries that are booming today. Done correctly, murder can be highly profitable for the murderer (displace an ethnic minority to take their land, kill people opposing your government, stealing riches, protect your religion for heretics/infidels, etc.).
What? Do you hate economic growth? The rich killing the poor is what had created most of the developed nations of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Done correctly, murder can be highly profitable for the murderer (displace an ethnic minority to take their land, kill people opposing your government, stealing riches, protect your religion for heretics/infidels, etc.).
Stab a rich guy in the alley and take his wallet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... Without Batman, Wayne Industries would have specialized in porn, DRM, and GMO crops?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hate economic growth? The rich killing the poor is what had created most of the developed nations of the world.
At the very least doing so will increase the average richness of the people!
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology could have quite a few peaceful uses as well.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Informative)
Could, and does. FTFA:
Since those legal hurdles were resolved, Aspen Water has been growing, distributing fresh water systems to militaries around the world and in humanitarian crises.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I would expect the peaceful/civilian market for such a system to be far greater than the military market. Also for more permanent installations. Plenty of communities that have a problem getting enough potable water. And it could have use in shipping industry too, saving the vessels to carry (and keep fresh) large amounts of water for long periods of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're pro-death and torment from your request he "burn", right?
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you.
The senseless murder of people by other people has been going on for a long time and will unfortunately continue for at least the near future. But developing and producing better water purifiers does nothing to encourage it.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Potable water is the most critical resource on the planet. The wars of the future will not be fought over access to oil or nuclear fuel, they'll be fought over water shortages.
Anything that makes water easier to obtain will save lives in the long run, even if it's being used chiefly by the military today.
Re: (Score:2)
Until rain becomes contaminated this is not going to be a world wide issue. There are a few places that are having issues with potable water such as the Nile and the Ganges but most of the world will not have that issue. With solar energy and contaminated water portable water is one step away.
Re: (Score:2)
Until rain becomes contaminated this is not going to be a world wide issue. There are a few places that are having issues with potable water such as the Nile and the Ganges but most of the world will not have that issue. With solar energy and contaminated water portable water is one step away.
I think it's already portable, it's just heavy that it's difficult to move a lot of it unless you can channel it downhill ;-)
Seriously, on the larger issue I couldn't disagree more. Google [google.co.id] gives lots of good stuff. The very first document says: "Our Bottom Line: During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will experience water problems—shortages, poor water quality, or floods—that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract
Re: (Score:2)
As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems.
That is exactly what I said; water will not be an issue in the entire Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern as well. Those areas listed make up only a small part of the world and water supply is not a world issue.
Filtering dirty water to make it useful for crops or washing your car is easy. Filtering it (cheaply) to make it drinkable is much harder. Desalinating it, as this does, is more difficult still, and usually very energy intensive.
Do you notice that most of those places are very sunny and solar power is abundant? It will cost money to build and maintain these plants but it is still less than full scale war. On the other hand, perhaps people should move to places where there is water.
Re: (Score:2)
Move to where? Immigration rules usually stop it if you have to go to another country to find abundant water.
Re: (Score:3)
Then perhaps immigration rules are the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that you're wrong about water being vital, but it's availability is very much dependent on "oil or nuclear fuel". It's not like there isn't enough water to go around, it's just that it's either in the wrong place or not drinkable. Both of those problems are trivially solvable with sufficient application of energy.
Look in the mirror with the rest of us: (Score:2)
Rodney King asked: "Can't we all just get along?"
Several thousand years of human history demonstrate that the general answer is a resounding "No!".
Many of us can get along with at least some of the others out there some of the time, but thinking that we all have nothing but peace love and singing Kumbaya in our hearts is wishfull thinking.
Oh, we might become that way at some point in the future. But, I think it would take some massive genetic/social engineering or eugenic breeding.
And I'm not sure what you'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was trying to save people from the dehydration. Stop picking on the poor water distribution engineer.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe he meant "senseless to a sensible person." Also, I think you meant rationalization, not rationale.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes the Communists and the Nazis were just peace loving agnostic/atheists groups.
Saying religion is the problem is oversimplifying the problem. Is religion used in an excuse to make war, yes. Is religion an excuse to make peace, yes.
Religion is only one way we consider our identity. So we will support our peers of like minds. Take away religion we will fight for other thing, political ideals, resources, borders, race and ethnicity, moral code, social class status.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if you were being sarcastic but just to make clear: the Nazi's were very, very much Christian. The SS belt buckle had "God with us" on it and Hitler was raised Catholic and always claimed to be a Christian but wanted to actually create a more extreme form of Christianity and make himself the Messiah.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is the biggest excuse for killing not the biggest cause. The cause is always power. Power from owning land, resources, strategic positions or influence. The only other cause of killing is insanity, insanity as a result of disease, poverty, oppression, etc.
Power or insanity.
Religion brings them both together in one package, so its often cited as the cause.
But religion is often a way to motivate people (Score:2)
You might be right about power, but religion feed off of power and power feeds off of religion. Reason is much harder to find when you start off life inside a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't feature much in Western history so it gets overlooked.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to say that those three killed more together than Hitler, the Inquisition, the crusades, both world wars and the handful of wars in recent times?
Also, it was a communist (maoist) philosophy, not atheist. Atheism (the philosophy) did not influence their decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought estimates for deaths under stalin was 20 million on the low side to 40 million on the high side?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they were probably evenly matched, although Stalin was in power for a lot longer than the 15 years of the Taiping Rebellion.
Was trying to make the point that I've heard this 'biggest killers were all atheists' stuff before and it isn't really true.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Informative)
b : foolish, stupid: it was some senseless practical joke — A. Conan Doyle
c : meaningless: a senseless murder
He probably meant it as "meaningless" I'm guessing. As in, it's meaningless to resort to violence when it only makes the problem worst.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what drives more U.S. Soldiers to commit suicide than are actually killed in combat, is that it's often the case that the Al-Qaeda follower planting an IED is a 12 year old boy
Re: (Score:3)
Combat is almost over, so the suicide rate is reasonably likely to exceed combat deaths.
"is that it's often the case that the Al-Qaeda follower planting an IED is a 12 year old boy"
Since when are there many "Al Qaeda" followers and since when is mining commonly being done by 12-year olds?
The usual reasons for checking out have more to do with young marrieds coming UN-married as lonely wives get stuffed while the husband is deployed. Anyone pulling First Sergeant duty in war or peace or in-between gets to co
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true Armchair General....
First Sergeant is a rank [wikipedia.org]in the military, not a duty position. And nobody who knew anything about the military would call a 1SG a duty position.
Re: (Score:3)
First Shirt is, in the Air Force, a Special Duty Assignment. Scroll down in your own reference!
It is common to pull "alternate First Sergeant" and at least in the Air Force there are more of them than the official, diamond-wearing one-per-unit variety.
When the Shirt deploys or goes on leave, his duty doesn't go away. The alternates get to take up the slack and can be on call if he can't be reached.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US military isn't evil it just follows the orders of the scumbag 1% who own the US government. The invasion of Iraq had only one driver to get Bush's croony oil folks rich'er. Everything else was a smoke screen for stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of Iraq are better off now than in the past 50 years. Whatever the agenda may have been the end result is a net gain in freedom for the people of earth.
Look at Saddam's son who would have followed him as the dictator there and would now be in power if Iraq had not been invaded. People tend to forget about how really evil that family was.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of Iraq are better off now than in the past 50 years.
What!? Are you auditioning for the job of the new Iraqi Information Minister? ( replacing Comical Ali, aka Baghdad Bob.)
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Sadam was better then getting a communist supporter in power. Sometimes you need to choose from the lesser of two evils. The USSR with nukes pointing at you, or put a crazy man who will not join the side with all those nukes pointing at you, we will deal with the crazy man later. Just like FDR working with Stallin in WWII the communists were a threat to America, but Germany was a bigger threat.
Sometimes in life you get places where you need to take the least bad action.
Re: (Score:2)
. The USSR with nukes pointing at you, or put a crazy man who will not join the side with all those nukes pointing at you, we will deal with the crazy man later.
You know, while the average person on the street was all whipped up into a froth over nukes in Russia, I'm not sure that anyone actually making decisions was. Kim-Jong is a little scary, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe AC that the US installed the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party into power.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And the "home of the free" legalized slavery for 89 years and now wants to tell people how much Coke they can drink in one serving.
taking resources... (Score:3)
The only resources the US has been taking are those of our citizens...and redistributing them in Afganistan and Iraq. If it was the other way around, we'd be getting rich here in the US...instead we're spending all our resources on roads, bribes, construction, keeping of the peace, and other measures abroad.
Re:Still a bad guy (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, the Military does not start wars, Politicians start wars by telling the military who to attack. "War is the extension of politics by use of force" or words to that effect.
I have tremendous respect for the US Military, its members etc. I have a lot less respect for the rich and powerful who get their politician underlings to order the invasion of a country so they can secure oil and make big profits off of the support contracts for all the troops that get sent. Anyone US soldier who died in Iraq did so not only because the enemy killed them, but also in part because they were sent there by people seeking economic gain.
Almost every war is economic at heart, and the soldiers sent to fight it are merely tools used by Politicians to achieve their goals. This does not in any way denigrate the dedication of those troops who get sent to the war IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
I have tremendous respect for the US Military
Support the troops: bring them home?
I have a lot less respect for the rich and powerful who get their politician underlings to order the invasion of a country so they can secure oil and make big profits
Shades of Smedley Butler...
Re: (Score:3)
In most of the world it's more like:
Gee I'm thirsty. So are my wife, six children, handful of cows, and all the people I know in my village. I don't have any way to dig a well deep enough to give me sufficient water, much less my family and friends who are also thirsty.
But we do have a lot of guns and bullets.....
It's a very shitty situation, and I think your logic is inappropriately reductionist and simple minded.
Re: (Score:2)
this is that poor mentality I don't get.. "I'm poor so lets fuck a lot have pump out the kids".
What's not to get. It's like nine months after a significant power failure. What else are you going to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. First you make sure the helicopter is over water, shoot with the chain gun, crash, then sinkage.
no be have to fully punch chad out for it to count (Score:2)
no be have to fully punch chad out for it to count
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm sure Slashdot's readership is a highly sought-after market for $70,000 water purifiers.
Re:Advertising strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you believe a significant number of Slashdot posters they are so dangerous to the established world order that they need to triply encrypt their data, send it via a darknetted Tor system and only read it under an infrared light after scanning the room for stray electromagnetic emissions. These highly sought after individuals might well need water purification systems for their discretely located subterranean lair.
Re: (Score:2)
These highly sought after individuals might well need water purification systems for their discretely located subterranean lair.
Not nearly as much as people without a discretely located subterranean lair, however, who have fewer opportunities for water storage.
Re:Advertising strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an ugly example of Slashdot's owners whoring the site for SEO purposes. It ain't about trying to sell water purifiers to anonymous cowards. It's about boosting this company in Google rankings when buyers are searching for water purification systems.
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
How about the Crushinator? My robot bud here needs a new girlfriend....
Parent not as blatently sold-out as the article! (Score:2)
Re:70 litres of water vs 300 (Score:5, Funny)
Having spent some time in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Oman, I can assert that they don't waste a lot of water on frivolous things like showers.