They still cost one hundred million dollars each (referring to F-35s retrofitted with drone controls here), so you can't just throw them away in the face of air defense.
Though I'm sure if a new UAV model was designed it would be cheaper (certainly not expendable cheap). I always figured a good chunk of weight and cost was making it habitable humans at high altitude. I mean, you've got the ejection seat, pressurization system, all of the controls and displays. But it may be cheaper just to build them manned so you have both options and not as much redesign cost.
There's a big difference - even on a computerized plane, all the inputs come from somewhere aboard the plane. You can't log in and tell it to bomb somewhere else. Drones are remotely controlled by design.
Except that the outputs come from the computer, so if you can get your software onto the computer (don't forget that hackers already stole 1 TB of design plans for the F-35 - and that's just the known breach, who knows what else they may have), then you can make the plane fly anywhere you want, regardless of what the pilot wants.
I've always wondered whether these types of thefts are intentional low hanging fruit filled with just enough misinformation to make the data worthless or harmful to design from, and the reports about it merely reinforce that story.
Of course, then there's that "don't attribute to malice what could just as easy be stupidity, because it is usually stupidity." (or incompetence)
Yeah but a radio transmitter capable of overpowering the weak GPS signal in a massive radius costs hundreds. A HARM missile designed to destroy that transmitter costs close to a million.
When have we ever worried about the price of blowing things up? The unit price (not even counting development) of some S-A and cruise missiles are quite high.
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
It is somewhat of a chilling effect on free speech, but this applies more to England, which is what causes libel tourism - like the way Scientology has imported anti-scientology books there. US libel laws are far stricter, and there is a US law which states they will not do anything to a US citizen when other countries charge them with slander/libel if it would not be punishable under US law. I would say they can limit speech if they are implied overly broad and/or without proportional punishment (both in sentence and in equal application to all people). In the hands of a despotic authoritarian dictatorship they can be the beginning of the end of any line other than the one you're told.
All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.
Are grassroots movements funded by billionaires (plural)? Or do they consist of people who live in tents for months? Do they have Sarah Palin as a spokesperson and lame stream media (meaning non-murdoch owned publications) fighter , or nobody - but everybody by design, intending to be better representational (whether that contributed anything meaningful is debatable).
See, when people say silly things like "patenting shit like rounded corners", we know you never actually looked into what was patented, nor understood it, but instead, just like repeating talking points you were given.
Luckily, in the court of law, people actually examine evidence.
I tried to find that place once, but there was a dude who wouldn't let me in the door and kept mumbling stuff about bigger people guarding bigger doors. Years later I trip, he thinks I'm dead, says some shit and shuts the door. Prick.
Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.
Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that (or if you had better reading comprehension skills, as your UID indicates you had a/. account when the lawsuit started and it was covered almost daily here for months).
Cook may not have agreed with initiating the lawsuit, but once it was started it's likely he saw going through with it as the best strategic option. The damage had already been done, the best he could hope for was to win. Kind of like the Iraq war. It was a stupid idea, but once we toppled their government there was no turning back.
I consider the war analogy bad. There is always a way to end a conflict quickly. Admitting being wrong makes you look bad but is morally correct. But when we do bad we can't "look bad" (American Exceptionalism), so when we do bad, we do bad good. B-)
Texas has a very large influence because we are the most populated state in the region and therefore order the most schoolbooks. However, last i read, more recently the school board decided to not only reject creationism but to affirm there are no viable alternatives to evolution right there in the biology books. In ninth grade biology in early 2000s I was taught evolution by means of natural selection with not one objection by any students and no mention of anything else by my superb biology teacher. Of course I live in a city with a 120k+ population. The bible thumpers generally are concentrated in the boonies. Generalizing Texas by the few whackos who fight for a voice only to advance their hysterical views is unfair. My college biology professor had one of those Jesus fish with little feet with Darwin written in it on his car. =-)
That's because the dowsing effect is due to the "Ideomotor Effect". They are genuinely self-deluded, and are not conscious liars or charlatans. Its a damn good trick of the mind that anyone can fall prey to.
I think you'll find that Randi does not dismiss dowsers in the same way as cold readers like John Edward or Sylvia Browne. The supposed psychics are conscious deceivers rather than self-deceived like the dowsers.
i suppose that answers my question. How do they believe it works, when chance gives the same result?
I saw the show you did awhile ago on YouTube, where you had dowsers try and prove their technique. Did those people legitimately believe what they were doing worked or were they typical charlatans? How did they explain their failures? Hope your're staying in good health James!
Stunningly beautiful. It would be even cooler synced to some fast classical music. Why are they taking it down in two years? Won't the LEDs last longer?
Despite this being the largest systematic fraud in human history, not a single person involved will be executed. Not a single one will be sent to prison. Perhaps a designated sword-faller will be charged with something... but there will be no fines of any actual import, no laws passed that mandate harsh punishments in the future, in short no meaningful action of any kind.
Well ain't I psychic.
jump you fuckers
Maybe you missed the 500 million dollar fines and the potential future fines of up to 10% of revenue. Not exactly peanuts, but probably a small fraction of money generated fraudulently. Of course the excuse will be they don't want to destroy the banks. HSBC laundered billions for the los zetas cartel and got a slap on the wrist. Their reasoning was that destabilizing the second largest bank, by assets, on earth would be bad.
You're not properly accounting for all externalities there - chance of disease, loss of reputation, actual distaste for the act itself, etc. Besides, it's not like banks would expose themselves to million-dollar potential fines for $10 either.
The quote, like most quotes, is an over-simplification. Banks, like companies, like people, make decisions based on the potential payout versus the potential risk by the chance of the risk being actualized, whether those risk/rewards are monetary, reputational, emotional, whatever. So while someone might not blow a guy for $10, raise that to $10 million and see how many would say no. It's just a case of thresholds.
From breaking bad "name one thing in this world that's not negotiable." =-D
The summary and its linked article are both unclear as to what "misconduct" is being discussed. Fortunately, clarity is available through the original paper:
. . . we found that misconduct is responsible for most retracted articles and that fraud or suspected fraud is the most common form of misconduct. Moreover, the incidence of retractions due to fraud is increasing, a trend that should be concerning to scientists and non-scientists alike.
The study is looking into why scientific papers are being retracted and what trends there are in the retractions.
It's too bad that the summary was so generic it could have meant anything from nosepicking to marital infidelity to fabricating data. This is an interesting topic, and it's sad that the frequency of fraudulent publications is increasing.
Increasing? That's expected. the population of humans is doing the same thing. And even if it is not due to population size, detection could just be getting better.
They have an active insurgency in their tribal region as well as a cease-fire in place with India which is currently being violated on both sides, while covertly supporting an insurgency in Afghanistan. Oh, and supporting education for girls will get you shot in the head, even if you are an eleven year old girl!
Slashdot Mirror
They still cost one hundred million dollars each (referring to F-35s retrofitted with drone controls here), so you can't just throw them away in the face of air defense.
Though I'm sure if a new UAV model was designed it would be cheaper (certainly not expendable cheap). I always figured a good chunk of weight and cost was making it habitable humans at high altitude. I mean, you've got the ejection seat, pressurization system, all of the controls and displays. But it may be cheaper just to build them manned so you have both options and not as much redesign cost.
There's a big difference - even on a computerized plane, all the inputs come from somewhere aboard the plane. You can't log in and tell it to bomb somewhere else. Drones are remotely controlled by design.
Except that the outputs come from the computer, so if you can get your software onto the computer (don't forget that hackers already stole 1 TB of design plans for the F-35 - and that's just the known breach, who knows what else they may have), then you can make the plane fly anywhere you want, regardless of what the pilot wants.
I've always wondered whether these types of thefts are intentional low hanging fruit filled with just enough misinformation to make the data worthless or harmful to design from, and the reports about it merely reinforce that story.
Of course, then there's that "don't attribute to malice what could just as easy be stupidity, because it is usually stupidity." (or incompetence)
Yeah but a radio transmitter capable of overpowering the weak GPS signal in a massive radius costs hundreds. A HARM missile designed to destroy that transmitter costs close to a million.
When have we ever worried about the price of blowing things up? The unit price (not even counting development) of some S-A and cruise missiles are quite high.
You are arguing a hollow and false ideology against an empirical history of fact.
And you cant argue about the historicity of facts, they're kinda like God, they always have been.
Oh, you mean fact of history.... er, wait, what?
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
It is somewhat of a chilling effect on free speech, but this applies more to England, which is what causes libel tourism - like the way Scientology has imported anti-scientology books there. US libel laws are far stricter, and there is a US law which states they will not do anything to a US citizen when other countries charge them with slander/libel if it would not be punishable under US law. I would say they can limit speech if they are implied overly broad and/or without proportional punishment (both in sentence and in equal application to all people). In the hands of a despotic authoritarian dictatorship they can be the beginning of the end of any line other than the one you're told.
So the Tea Party is just astro-turfing? Yet the Occupy Wall Street is grass roots?
That's correct. The Tea Party was a construction made with the Koch brothers money and the assistance of Fox News to publicise it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0
All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.
Are grassroots movements funded by billionaires (plural)? Or do they consist of people who live in tents for months? Do they have Sarah Palin as a spokesperson and lame stream media (meaning non-murdoch owned publications) fighter , or nobody - but everybody by design, intending to be better representational (whether that contributed anything meaningful is debatable).
On the other hand, it tries to force both parties' platforms to the center of the electorate, strongly curbing radical influence.
Fixed. I think from what we've seen lately, it can fail at that goal.
See, when people say silly things like "patenting shit like rounded corners", we know you never actually looked into what was patented, nor understood it, but instead, just like repeating talking points you were given.
Luckily, in the court of law, people actually examine evidence.
I tried to find that place once, but there was a dude who wouldn't let me in the door and kept mumbling stuff about bigger people guarding bigger doors. Years later I trip, he thinks I'm dead, says some shit and shuts the door. Prick.
Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.
Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that (or if you had better reading comprehension skills, as your UID indicates you had a /. account when the lawsuit started and it was covered almost daily here for months).
Cook may not have agreed with initiating the lawsuit, but once it was started it's likely he saw going through with it as the best strategic option. The damage had already been done, the best he could hope for was to win. Kind of like the Iraq war. It was a stupid idea, but once we toppled their government there was no turning back.
I consider the war analogy bad. There is always a way to end a conflict quickly. Admitting being wrong makes you look bad but is morally correct. But when we do bad we can't "look bad" (American Exceptionalism), so when we do bad, we do bad good. B-)
Cellulistic ethanol should be the source, not a food source.
Texas has a very large influence because we are the most populated state in the region and therefore order the most schoolbooks. However, last i read, more recently the school board decided to not only reject creationism but to affirm there are no viable alternatives to evolution right there in the biology books. In ninth grade biology in early 2000s I was taught evolution by means of natural selection with not one objection by any students and no mention of anything else by my superb biology teacher. Of course I live in a city with a 120k+ population. The bible thumpers generally are concentrated in the boonies. Generalizing Texas by the few whackos who fight for a voice only to advance their hysterical views is unfair. My college biology professor had one of those Jesus fish with little feet with Darwin written in it on his car. =-)
If you weren't such douchebags to so many people of the planet... You wouldn't need to worry so hard about 'threats'...
Not being an ass is even free.
So how much money have you spent?
Not if you think about government spending. First spend the money, then see if you can do something useful with it.
Why is this "troll?" Anyone else just read about rape-i-scan machines?
But it is never truly "consumed" per the laws of thermodynamics. it's just in a new, less useful form.
That is the better question =-)
That's because the dowsing effect is due to the "Ideomotor Effect". They are genuinely self-deluded, and are not conscious liars or charlatans. Its a damn good trick of the mind that anyone can fall prey to.
I think you'll find that Randi does not dismiss dowsers in the same way as cold readers like John Edward or Sylvia Browne. The supposed psychics are conscious deceivers rather than self-deceived like the dowsers.
i suppose that answers my question. How do they believe it works, when chance gives the same result?
I saw the show you did awhile ago on YouTube, where you had dowsers try and prove their technique. Did those people legitimately believe what they were doing worked or were they typical charlatans? How did they explain their failures? Hope your're staying in good health James!
Stunningly beautiful. It would be even cooler synced to some fast classical music. Why are they taking it down in two years? Won't the LEDs last longer?
Despite this being the largest systematic fraud in human history, not a single person involved will be executed. Not a single one will be sent to prison. Perhaps a designated sword-faller will be charged with something... but there will be no fines of any actual import, no laws passed that mandate harsh punishments in the future, in short no meaningful action of any kind. Well ain't I psychic. jump you fuckers
Maybe you missed the 500 million dollar fines and the potential future fines of up to 10% of revenue. Not exactly peanuts, but probably a small fraction of money generated fraudulently. Of course the excuse will be they don't want to destroy the banks. HSBC laundered billions for the los zetas cartel and got a slap on the wrist. Their reasoning was that destabilizing the second largest bank, by assets, on earth would be bad.
It mentions lowering the rate through manipulation, and the effort to hide weakness, it just doesn't mention the benefit to borrowers.
You're not properly accounting for all externalities there - chance of disease, loss of reputation, actual distaste for the act itself, etc. Besides, it's not like banks would expose themselves to million-dollar potential fines for $10 either.
The quote, like most quotes, is an over-simplification. Banks, like companies, like people, make decisions based on the potential payout versus the potential risk by the chance of the risk being actualized, whether those risk/rewards are monetary, reputational, emotional, whatever. So while someone might not blow a guy for $10, raise that to $10 million and see how many would say no. It's just a case of thresholds.
From breaking bad "name one thing in this world that's not negotiable." =-D
If you have netflix, I'd recommend Kimjongilia. It covers the stories of defectors, including Shin. Very well done.
My buddy just got back from Iran, he went with his girlfriend. She was giving him lip so he threw her off the balcony, and he was cited for littering.
The summary and its linked article are both unclear as to what "misconduct" is being discussed. Fortunately, clarity is available through the original paper:
. . . we found that misconduct is responsible for most retracted articles and that fraud or suspected fraud is the most common form of misconduct. Moreover, the incidence of retractions due to fraud is increasing, a trend that should be concerning to scientists and non-scientists alike.
The study is looking into why scientific papers are being retracted and what trends there are in the retractions.
It's too bad that the summary was so generic it could have meant anything from nosepicking to marital infidelity to fabricating data. This is an interesting topic, and it's sad that the frequency of fraudulent publications is increasing.
Increasing? That's expected. the population of humans is doing the same thing. And even if it is not due to population size, detection could just be getting better.
Yes, relative to Pakistan, we are quite peaceful.
They have an active insurgency in their tribal region as well as a cease-fire in place with India which is currently being violated on both sides, while covertly supporting an insurgency in Afghanistan. Oh, and supporting education for girls will get you shot in the head, even if you are an eleven year old girl!
Are we peaceful?
No.
Relative to Pakistan?
Uh, yes.