It's not just the United States that has bombed civilians.
It was also the standard military practice of the Imperial German Air Force Zeppelin's in World War One, the Turkish Air Force before world war one, and the Italian and Japanese Air Forces in the 1930s.
Then in the Second World War, the United States, Great Britian, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany all bombed cities. Of course much of German and Japanese industrial production had been moved into homes, so it could be argued that it was a military target.
During the Cold War, the United States, Soviet Union, Iraq and Iran all bombed civilian targets. But during the Vietnam War and Gulf War, the United States kept thier heavy bombers out of urban targets for the most part. The Soviet Union and Iraq both used chemical weapons on civilians.
I'm not arguing with the fact that "civilians" have died in Afghanistan, but it's not just the United States that has bombed civilians, and if you look closely at US bombing tactics in the last 40 years you will see that the United States goes to great pains to avoid civilian loses, sure there are mistakes made, but it's very hard to achieve perfection when dealing with all the variables in combat.
There was another funny quote about them from a couple years back.
"If you put a bunch of spiders in togeather, in a few days you are left with one big, fat, happy spider."
IIRC this was when the genetic alterations was being done to the goats, nice to see there's been progress. This has been a Army funded project for years, I remeber reading it in the WSJ back in the mid 80s.
The RTGs on Galileo won't "detonate" nor will it "contaminate" anything. Even if Galileo crashed on Europa, all it would do is sink as far as it could sink and give off a nice bit of warmth there in the dark.
RTGs have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere with no ill effects after the Apollo 13 mission.
Galileo isn't nuclear powered in the sense that "nuclear powered" means to most people. When you say nuclear powered, that means it has a fission reactor somewhere in the bowls of the machine. At least that's what it means in naval terms. The RTGs on Galileo and Cassini provide electrical power from the natural decay of Plutonium. The RTGs are quite robust and have not failed in any test or real world situation.
If you read 2010, you would know that he didn't call it an unlit star, the mass was too small, thats why all those TMA monoliths started to replicate on Jupiter, to increase the mass of the place, then it lit off.
It took years to give the probe the energy to make it out to Jupiter and then to establish an orbit.
Think about what Jupiter is, it's the second largest object in the solar system and it would take a huge amount of energy to get Galileo out of Jupiter's orbit. The RTGs that give the probe it's power degrade over time and the probe has been out there for close to 13 years.
The Pioneer and Voyager probes were able to move past Saturn and Jupiter because they weren't designed to get that close, thier orbits were designed to sweep past the Giants and then keep going. Galileo and Cassini were designed to get in close and orbit the moons and the Giants but not to escape.
Even if NASA had the budget to keep them going, Galileo and Cassini don't have the ability to leave orbit.
It's like asking to move a geo-sync out to lunar or Mars orbit when the sat is being retired, you just can't do it.
Re:You make it sound so simple
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
China does have a much bigger military than the United States, Iraq had 1.5 to 2.3 times more men in the field than the Allies had in '90-'91, but it's not the size of the Army that matters, it's how you project your power.
The United States sent a few well trained men into Afghanistan to work with the Northern Alliance, but they had the ability to direct intelligence and aircraft from the projected power that sat in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia and Missouri.
The Soviets...sort of got power projection, the French and United Kingdom...sort of got it too, but the Chinese don't. If you look at the Chinese Air Force, you will see a lack of heavy-lift, tankers and airborne Command Communications and Control (C3) aircraft. The Chinese are starting to buy these things, but 2-10 don't make a fleet when you consider that 33% of your aircraft will always be down for some reason.
Same goes for the Chinese Navy and People's Liberation Army. The Chinese are starting to buy some advanced ships from Russia, but they lack experiance in deep sea operations and replenishment while-under-way. In 1999 there was a widly publicised trip by two Chinese frigates to the United States for fleet-week at San Diego (this was during the Y2K and Chinese-are-taking-over-the-Panama-Canal scares). It took those ships 6 weeks to make it across the Pacific and one of them had to be towed by a deep-sea tug-boat out of Hawaii when it ran out of fuel. That's an indication of Chinese power-porjection.
It's all about Power Projection, not the size of your military.
Re:Boeing Phantom Works Project
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Neat. SEAD is the most dangerous thing a fighter can be called on to do.
I understand that the losing Boeing JSF may be refitted as a drone for the Navy. The Navy wants a drone that can be used day in and day out for fighter ops, while the USAF wants a pack and go fighter without the reusability of the Navy plan.
Re:How can you compare Afghanistan to WW2?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
"In WW2, before America joined the war, the English were in real danger of losing! Germany was bombing London (remotely, I might add, using the V2 rocket),"
The V2 and V1 strikes started 2 and a half years after the United States entered World War Two, and after the Anglo-American invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy. The English didn't have to use every bit of effort to keep off the German forces because Germany lacked the ability to project power in the North Sea, so an invasion was not happening. Plus the UK was also fighting a multi-front war with the United States, Dutch and the Commonwealth in the Pacific and Asia.
"At no time were US citizens EVER threatened by the Taliban or other Afghan military forces."
Really? I guess you missed the time there when airplanes hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. 3000+ civilians were threatened by al Qaeda and Taliban forces operating in the United States. Al Qaeda worked hand in hand with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are responsable for the killing of hundreds in Southern Africa in 1999, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and now for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, as well as arming and training persons that attacked the UN and US in Somalia, attack the Russians in Chechyna and I'd bet aid and train the murders in Algeria and the Sudan.
To say that no US citizens...or the citizens of anyother nation were not threatened by the Taliban or other Afghani military forces is simple ignorance.
They didn't bring the V-3 on-line because it was bombed.
That's the entire problem with the German war industry. It was bombed. They moved alot of it underground, and then the production begain to increase, but it was too late.
In Keegan's Second World War, he talks at times about the sheer math of the Russian front. From the moment the Nazi's crossed the Russian frontier, they were out numbered in men, trucks, tanks, and horses (remeber that the Germans were still heavily dependant on the horse). For every 1 German tank built from June of 1941 till Kursk in '43, they lost 1.2-1.5 tanks. Many of the tanks lost were early marks of Panzer, but the numbers declined.
The US solution, as I remeber, was to take the U-238 from the U-235 through the use of centerfuges. Thousands and thousands of centerfuges at Oak Ridge. With thousands and thousands of pounds of silver to power the equipment since copper was needed for the war.
Besides, for every Nazi "Super-Weapon" something else had to be paused.
Books on the U-Boat war argue that if the V-2s and Me-262 hadn't been built, there would have been the manpower for the advanced U-Boats to be built.
Through-out 1944 and 1945, the German war production was a series of starts and stops when someone wanted a new "super-weapon". The huge rail-guns used to shell targets on the Russian Front used as much steel as it took to built hundreds of armored vehicles, yet the Germans lacked armor and had artillery to spare. Instead of building battle-field rockets like the Americans and Russians, the Germans built V-1s and V-2s that didn't have a marked impact on the war.
The Germans didn't have the manpower or capital to do these things.
It doesn't matter what happened and if someone decided to sabotage the bomb in German or not.
The Reich would not have been able to build an atomic bomb because they couldn't have set up the infrastructure without it being bombed to support the atomic bomb creation.
In Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" he goes into alot of detail about how much industrial infrastructure was needed to make the Uranium and Plutonium for the 3 American atomic bombs.
And don't forget the amount of money and metals it took to make the equipment. The United States built 2 cities of 50,000 people each, one at Oak Ridge and the other at Hanford.
Germany didn't have the manpower, materials or bomb-proof infrastructure during the war to produce an atomic bomb.
I am hurt at the job because of something my workplace has done or hasn't done, then they are obligated. But if it's a preventable injury or it's caused by me, why should the workplace be taking care of me?
That's one of the reasons I keep a Mac on my desk at home and at work.
I can do the Windows stuff I want in Virtual PC. I can do my work in OS X. I can what I need to get done on it.
I work on computers for a living, I don't want to be working on my machine just to keep it running. In my experiance, Macs just work.
Other people don't have the same opinion, some people get Windows to work for days and days without a reboot, I havn't seen that, I do see OS X boxes running for weeks, or months (my G3 266 AIO has 67 days of uptime).
The iMac is for the consumer, it's been 3 and a half years but alot of Slashdotters don't understand this.
The iMac is for people that want a computer they doesn't take knowledge of computers to use.
College kids that arn't in CS, Grandmas, Mothers, cousins, aunts. The Art kids or the math kids at my work, they don't give a shit about a front-side bus speed or a clock multiple. It's an iMac. It can connect to your digital camera without drivers or installing anything and it works. It'll burn CDs and DVDs too if you want it.
It's an iMac, it just works. That's why it's got a 100 MHz fbs. Because it's market doesn't care about 100 vs. 133 fbs or what kind of RAM is in it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just the United States that has bombed civilians.
It was also the standard military practice of the Imperial German Air Force Zeppelin's in World War One, the Turkish Air Force before world war one, and the Italian and Japanese Air Forces in the 1930s.
Then in the Second World War, the United States, Great Britian, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany all bombed cities. Of course much of German and Japanese industrial production had been moved into homes, so it could be argued that it was a military target.
During the Cold War, the United States, Soviet Union, Iraq and Iran all bombed civilian targets. But during the Vietnam War and Gulf War, the United States kept thier heavy bombers out of urban targets for the most part. The Soviet Union and Iraq both used chemical weapons on civilians.
I'm not arguing with the fact that "civilians" have died in Afghanistan, but it's not just the United States that has bombed civilians, and if you look closely at US bombing tactics in the last 40 years you will see that the United States goes to great pains to avoid civilian loses, sure there are mistakes made, but it's very hard to achieve perfection when dealing with all the variables in combat.
There was another funny quote about them from a couple years back.
"If you put a bunch of spiders in togeather, in a few days you are left with one big, fat, happy spider."
IIRC this was when the genetic alterations was being done to the goats, nice to see there's been progress. This has been a Army funded project for years, I remeber reading it in the WSJ back in the mid 80s.
Bio-dome
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0115683
Pauly Shore, Stephen Baldwin, Joey Lauren Adams, and Patty Hearst.
The RTGs on Galileo won't "detonate" nor will it "contaminate" anything. Even if Galileo crashed on Europa, all it would do is sink as far as it could sink and give off a nice bit of warmth there in the dark.
RTGs have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere with no ill effects after the Apollo 13 mission.
Galileo isn't nuclear powered in the sense that "nuclear powered" means to most people. When you say nuclear powered, that means it has a fission reactor somewhere in the bowls of the machine. At least that's what it means in naval terms. The RTGs on Galileo and Cassini provide electrical power from the natural decay of Plutonium. The RTGs are quite robust and have not failed in any test or real world situation.
If you read 2010, you would know that he didn't call it an unlit star, the mass was too small, thats why all those TMA monoliths started to replicate on Jupiter, to increase the mass of the place, then it lit off.
Some of us Mac geeks had Commodore 64s before we had Macs and we got in trouble from our Aunts for buying LGoP.
That was the only Infocom game that I actually passed and went back to do all the possible endings.
It took years to give the probe the energy to make it out to Jupiter and then to establish an orbit.
Think about what Jupiter is, it's the second largest object in the solar system and it would take a huge amount of energy to get Galileo out of Jupiter's orbit. The RTGs that give the probe it's power degrade over time and the probe has been out there for close to 13 years.
The Pioneer and Voyager probes were able to move past Saturn and Jupiter because they weren't designed to get that close, thier orbits were designed to sweep past the Giants and then keep going. Galileo and Cassini were designed to get in close and orbit the moons and the Giants but not to escape.
Even if NASA had the budget to keep them going, Galileo and Cassini don't have the ability to leave orbit.
It's like asking to move a geo-sync out to lunar or Mars orbit when the sat is being retired, you just can't do it.
China does have a much bigger military than the United States, Iraq had 1.5 to 2.3 times more men in the field than the Allies had in '90-'91, but it's not the size of the Army that matters, it's how you project your power.
The United States sent a few well trained men into Afghanistan to work with the Northern Alliance, but they had the ability to direct intelligence and aircraft from the projected power that sat in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia and Missouri.
The Soviets...sort of got power projection, the French and United Kingdom...sort of got it too, but the Chinese don't. If you look at the Chinese Air Force, you will see a lack of heavy-lift, tankers and airborne Command Communications and Control (C3) aircraft. The Chinese are starting to buy these things, but 2-10 don't make a fleet when you consider that 33% of your aircraft will always be down for some reason.
Same goes for the Chinese Navy and People's Liberation Army. The Chinese are starting to buy some advanced ships from Russia, but they lack experiance in deep sea operations and replenishment while-under-way. In 1999 there was a widly publicised trip by two Chinese frigates to the United States for fleet-week at San Diego (this was during the Y2K and Chinese-are-taking-over-the-Panama-Canal scares). It took those ships 6 weeks to make it across the Pacific and one of them had to be towed by a deep-sea tug-boat out of Hawaii when it ran out of fuel. That's an indication of Chinese power-porjection.
It's all about Power Projection, not the size of your military.
Neat. SEAD is the most dangerous thing a fighter can be called on to do.
I understand that the losing Boeing JSF may be refitted as a drone for the Navy. The Navy wants a drone that can be used day in and day out for fighter ops, while the USAF wants a pack and go fighter without the reusability of the Navy plan.
"In WW2, before America joined the war, the English were in real danger of losing! Germany was bombing London (remotely, I might add, using the V2 rocket),"
The V2 and V1 strikes started 2 and a half years after the United States entered World War Two, and after the Anglo-American invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy. The English didn't have to use every bit of effort to keep off the German forces because Germany lacked the ability to project power in the North Sea, so an invasion was not happening. Plus the UK was also fighting a multi-front war with the United States, Dutch and the Commonwealth in the Pacific and Asia.
"At no time were US citizens EVER threatened by the Taliban or other Afghan military forces."
Really? I guess you missed the time there when airplanes hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. 3000+ civilians were threatened by al Qaeda and Taliban forces operating in the United States. Al Qaeda worked hand in hand with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are responsable for the killing of hundreds in Southern Africa in 1999, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and now for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, as well as arming and training persons that attacked the UN and US in Somalia, attack the Russians in Chechyna and I'd bet aid and train the murders in Algeria and the Sudan.
To say that no US citizens...or the citizens of anyother nation were not threatened by the Taliban or other Afghani military forces is simple ignorance.
When has the United States put weapons in space?
Or the Soviets for that matter?
Sure there are rumors of US and Soviet FOBS nukes being up there in the 60s and 70s, but no one thinks anyone has nukes up there now.
They didn't bring the V-3 on-line because it was bombed.
That's the entire problem with the German war industry. It was bombed. They moved alot of it underground, and then the production begain to increase, but it was too late.
In Keegan's Second World War, he talks at times about the sheer math of the Russian front. From the moment the Nazi's crossed the Russian frontier, they were out numbered in men, trucks, tanks, and horses (remeber that the Germans were still heavily dependant on the horse). For every 1 German tank built from June of 1941 till Kursk in '43, they lost 1.2-1.5 tanks. Many of the tanks lost were early marks of Panzer, but the numbers declined.
The US solution, as I remeber, was to take the U-238 from the U-235 through the use of centerfuges. Thousands and thousands of centerfuges at Oak Ridge. With thousands and thousands of pounds of silver to power the equipment since copper was needed for the war.
How many of them?
Not enough to win the war.
Besides, for every Nazi "Super-Weapon" something else had to be paused.
Books on the U-Boat war argue that if the V-2s and Me-262 hadn't been built, there would have been the manpower for the advanced U-Boats to be built.
Through-out 1944 and 1945, the German war production was a series of starts and stops when someone wanted a new "super-weapon". The huge rail-guns used to shell targets on the Russian Front used as much steel as it took to built hundreds of armored vehicles, yet the Germans lacked armor and had artillery to spare. Instead of building battle-field rockets like the Americans and Russians, the Germans built V-1s and V-2s that didn't have a marked impact on the war.
The Germans didn't have the manpower or capital to do these things.
It doesn't matter what happened and if someone decided to sabotage the bomb in German or not.
The Reich would not have been able to build an atomic bomb because they couldn't have set up the infrastructure without it being bombed to support the atomic bomb creation.
In Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" he goes into alot of detail about how much industrial infrastructure was needed to make the Uranium and Plutonium for the 3 American atomic bombs.
And don't forget the amount of money and metals it took to make the equipment. The United States built 2 cities of 50,000 people each, one at Oak Ridge and the other at Hanford.
Germany didn't have the manpower, materials or bomb-proof infrastructure during the war to produce an atomic bomb.
Yes, let floppies die.
I've seen too many floppies fail with a student's work on it.
Floppies just need to die.
Floppies sure seem to work.
We have USB floppies on OS X machines at my work, and I bought one for my Grandma, and all her floppies worked in the floppy drive.
I don't agree.
She was free to get a new job.
I am hurt at the job because of something my workplace has done or hasn't done, then they are obligated. But if it's a preventable injury or it's caused by me, why should the workplace be taking care of me?
Flame the President all you want, but this isn't something he decided.
This was the Supreme Court.
Apple is still selling a couple CRT iMacs at this time.
For 799 and 999. My guess it's for schools and other places where a CRT is alright.
Personally, I want a SuperDrive iMac. I just asked my boss for one.
There is.
It's not Linux, it's Mac OS X.
You don't need to run it on a new Mac, a second hand iMac or "Beige" G3 will run it just fine.
It's a UNIX with OpenGL support that even my Grandma can use.
My Grandma can read the letters on the 15 inch (14 real inches) screen of the CRT iMac at 1024x768
That's one of the reasons I keep a Mac on my desk at home and at work.
I can do the Windows stuff I want in Virtual PC. I can do my work in OS X. I can what I need to get done on it.
I work on computers for a living, I don't want to be working on my machine just to keep it running. In my experiance, Macs just work.
Other people don't have the same opinion, some people get Windows to work for days and days without a reboot, I havn't seen that, I do see OS X boxes running for weeks, or months (my G3 266 AIO has 67 days of uptime).
The iMac isn't for people that care about fsb.
The iMac is for the consumer, it's been 3 and a half years but alot of Slashdotters don't understand this.
The iMac is for people that want a computer they doesn't take knowledge of computers to use.
College kids that arn't in CS, Grandmas, Mothers, cousins, aunts. The Art kids or the math kids at my work, they don't give a shit about a front-side bus speed or a clock multiple. It's an iMac. It can connect to your digital camera without drivers or installing anything and it works. It'll burn CDs and DVDs too if you want it.
It's an iMac, it just works. That's why it's got a 100 MHz fbs. Because it's market doesn't care about 100 vs. 133 fbs or what kind of RAM is in it.
I have had good luck with my Panasonic A-310. I got it in August of '98 and it's been a champ.
My buddy has a Toshiba he got in December of '98 and he has had good luck too.
The Panasonic SuperDrive in my G4 Tower has been really good too.
Have any sources on info? I'll be getting a new DVD player this summer.