I'm thinking a band name. Squishy Pussy.

The problem with the F35 is the squishy organic component in the cockpit.

The concept of a jet fighter is pointless these days and the idea of a "dogfight" doubly so.

Fair enough, but the more passwords my squishy meat bag brain has to remember, the more likely I am to make them easier to guess.

On the other hand, if I only need one password, I can make it ridiculously long (favourite line from a song or poem or movie, for example).

An 8 character password with a mix of lower and upper case, numbers and let’s say 10 symbols (@&$!, etf) has (26+26+10+10)^8 possible combinations: ~ 722 trillion.

A ten character password of just letters has 52^10 possibile combinations: ~144555 trillion

longer is better than complicated

The ultimate problem with this is that it's not really needed.

Let's assume that all the problem get sorted out and the F-35 magically becomes the fastest, deadliest, stealthiest manned plane in the sky. It's still hamstrung by the squishy meatbag in the front.

For the cost of one F-35, you could have 10 predator drones. Slower, less maneuverable, less stealthy.... but also cheaper and expendable. You shoot down an F-35, you not only destroy the plane, but you most likely take the pilot out of the equation as well (even if they eject, they're still not going to be flying another plane any time soon). Shoot down a predator? "Game over. Insert $10 million to continue"

Manned air superiority fighters are last century.

Hah, it looks like a weird squishy face with two big black eyes (the nostrils) and a huge mouth towards the end while he's pulled back under the sheet.

But it's just political show for the masses. Look here, we do something about our shitty police! That's the sad part.
That won't stop cops from showing up with SWAT teams at your house because you didn't pay parking tickets.
The problem isn't being run over with a tank or getting shot to pieces by .50 cal machine guns. Any sensible law enforcement officer working in the US should just know that this is ridiculous overkill. They're not fighting Terminators or Transformers, they're fighting fleshy, squishy humans.
And here's the real problem. They shoot people with handguns and kneel on their throats. They spray you with mace or beat you with sticks. They use somewhat low tech weaponry to cross the lines.
The only field where that military equipment could become a real problem is in mass-protest situations. Just look at the occupy protests. However, teargas, riotgear and batons are still the very effective go-to-solution.

Yeah-Right now I'm projecting a thousand laser pointers directly into your retinas with the hope that when your sockets are free of those squishy fluid bags in the land of the blind, the no-eyed man man behind the dark sockets remains perfectly satisfied in the darkness of his own kingdom.

Believe me Sigmond, projection is as far afield of my issues with this particular round of banter as that dashing ape of yours is from knowing shit about that .45-

Er, they all do.

Plus, it's a game about dog fighting in space. Realism already went out the window (anyone advanced enough to be that deep in space will not have squishy meatbags controlling their ships)

I know the people in this group. Frankly, I'm kind of disappointed. I think the general idea is that there is some neural process, colloquially called attention, that is fundamental and possibly indicative of intelligence in general. Many people haven't thought about it carefully, but really attention has as much to do with suppression of irrelevant information as it does spotlighting relevant information. In the visual domain, it's often thought about as masking, or background subtraction. The finding here is supposed to tap into that relationship. High IQ people found it much easier to see the motion of the smaller target, and actually showed a deficit at detecting the larger (backgroundish) object. Frankly, I think it's squishy as all get out. The correlation was relatively strong, but I felt it relied heavily on a couple of subjects. In the end, my problem is really with the whole enterprise of trying to assess an ill-defined concept like intelligence. It would be interesting if a similar finding held across other perceptual modalities however. Even I would have to bother to listen at that point.

Who needs tire walls when you have a wall of squishy people to cushion the impact.

I'm sorry, but there are lots of bogus points in here. First of all, no one is arguing that the scope or impact of funded science should be anything less than great. The question is who should decide it. It seems the republicans want to take the awarding of scientific grants out of the hands of peer review, preferring that politicians micromanage the appropriation of research grants. Personally, I think that will lead to an end of basic science. Politicians are bound by their sponsors whom for the most part have an interest in public funding of applied rather than basic research.

This particular research is not about ecology or the environment, or some squishy bleeding heart first world problem. It's about the relative value of sexual and asexual reproduction. This particular snail can reproduce in either fashion, and it raises fundamental questions about when and why sexual reproduction would be preferred. It will likely lead to a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms that underlie sexual recombination, and how they relate to the success of progeny. Sounds like it's got some scope to me. The competition for grants is so stiff within science today that it's highly improbable that narrow research aims will be awarded. The fundamental question you need to ask yourself is "should basic science be funded, or should the only funding available be for applied science." My answer is an emphatic yes to basic science. It has proven its value beyond all doubt. Further, I personally feel that the applied work should be forced into the private sector as anything with a 5 year pay off will be funded naturally by the market anyway.

You also sing the praises of defense funding. I agree, many great discoveries have been funded by, say, DARPA. However, break it down by dollar spent. Because the money isn't allocated by peer review, but rather the whims of some brass, I personally don't feel it is efficiently allocated. Our impression when dealing with ONR (for example) is that they had absolutely no clue what they were interested in as a research aim, and had no clue what we were actually doing. They just thought we had some cool "high tech looking" stuff. Further, we as researchers didn't really care about their misguided scientific goals. It was sort of an unspoken understanding that we were doing cool stuff, and they had money to burn or else they wouldn't be getting anymore. All the while, the NIH is strapped with many of their institutes floating below a 10% award rate. Most of the reviewers would like to fund, say, 30-40% of the projects. Imagine if a quarter of that defense money was allocated by experts how much more efficiently it would be spent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_%28driving_stunt%29

Locking differential + squishy tires + low center of gravity + practice, even a Saudi without a real job can do it with a little practice.

Allah is indeed, Merciful

Up vote for anything on the wildwestshow channel!!
Squishy. Great word.

Now, now Greogory, troll is convenient label for all manner of folk who use the internet like crack cocaine....

I must concur with the spider not playing a pivotal role in the bio-train. If this project were halted by otters, snakes, owls, mice or beavers I could understand the fuss....Hell, even fleas or mosquito threatened would be cause for major alarm but a rare species of fucking arachnid?? Stomp that squishy, worry about the karma later, and build the fucking bypass!

....unless some arachnologist can find a biochemical compound it produces that cures cancer maybe....or maybe repairs livers "I dunno, JUST DON'T SQUASH IT!!"

Yeah, I'm surrounded by colleagues who get all squishy over the latest gizmo. I always tell them "I don't care if you can point your phone at somebody and have it scan their features and somehow call up their birth certificate online and project it as a hologram in mid-air, complete with the 3D embossed county seal. I'd still say big fucking deal, show me something useful".