The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).
I don't think so. The remaining pieces of the rocket might be able to tell us quite a lot.
It could be the case that the North Koreans are bumping up against some of the same problems that we did 60 years ago, when we were developing our own rocket program. If we know what made it fail, we'll know what they'll have to change to make it work, and exactly what technological advancements NK will need for future rockets to be successful. We can target our intelligence/diplomatic/military energies on those precise technologies.
Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.
This might be a great opportunity to see exactly how far advanced their missile/rocket program is, assuming we've got salvage vessels in place to pick up the pieces.
That your past actions suggest what you will do in a given situation.
When I was a kid, I stuck my finger in an electrical socket, and got a pretty nasty shock. Does that make me more, or less, likely to do the same in the future? Your argument implies that one cannot learn from experience.
Besides, the current geo-political situation is different enough from that which existed at the tail end of WWII, that I don't believe any meaningful parallels can be drawn. When we dropped the bombs on Japan, not only did the Japanese not possess nuclear weapons, no one else did either. WWII was simply the last time that the offensive use of nuclear weapons could make any strategic sense for the US. The "given situation" that you speak of is likely to never reoccur.
The threat of MAD has prevented the use of nuclear arms in the modern age. But, MAD theory rests on some critical assumptions about the nature of the states involved. Not all of those assumptions hold for the government of NK. So, MAD is less of a threat to them. Which makes them more likely to use nuclear weapons than a nation who's hand is stayed by the threat of MAD.
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions?
No. We should be judged for our use of nuclear weapons. I never implied otherwise.
That the past has no bearing on the future?
Of course it has bearing. But you've made no argument as to why our use of nuclear weapons in the past makes us more likely to use them in the future.
The reason why we were the only country to use nukes in an offensive manner, is because there was a very short window of time between the invention of nuclear weapons and the advent of MAD. Nobody else really had the chance.
Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how likely we are to use them now.
And I doubt you'd hesitate once vs russia or china if they attacked first.
That's kind of the point of MAD. You don't think Russia or China (or the USA) hasn't used them lately, because of some warm-fuzzy humanitarian reason, do you?
Nothing say north korea will attack first either [...]
Of course not. But, most people would agree that they are more likely (no matter how small that probability may be) to launch a first strike than the US, Russia, or China. They are a relatively small, backward, unstable, and unpredictable nation. They simply have less to lose.
Begging the question, IMO. "See, he's acting innocent. Only the most hardened of criminals act innocent when confronted with their guilt, so he MUST be guilty of something!"
No. I think the argument goes something like this: An innocent person will proclaim his innocence. Most guilty people also proclaim their innocence.
The point is, you can't tell anything about the guilt or innocence of a person based on their statements regarding their own innocence. The statement is essentially meaningless.
Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever?
I don't mean to defend the phone company (especially AT&T), but there are legitimate reasons to differentiate between different bits, both for the cell company and the consumer.
I want all my "voice" bits to have low latency, and high reliability. I don't mind if my web page loading pauses for a half second; but a half second pause in a conversation is less acceptable. They're both just bits. But most customers appreciate a distinction between the two.
Now, the cell network is not an unlimited pipe. There are a certain number of bits which can go through it over a specified period of time. But, people have an almost unlimited capacity to use all available bandwidth. So, you have to find some way to ration that bandwidth, while still retaining the distinctions between different "flavors" of bits.
AT&T has outright banned some activities on the iphone (tethering, 3G skype, 3G VOIP in general), as a way of rationing that limited bandwidth. They could also choose to implement price discrimination: charging customers more to tether, for example.
But, ultimately, they have to find a way to bring the "bandwidth actually used" number to at or below the "bandwidth available" number. All the while respecting the expectations of the consumers regarding different "flavors" of bits.
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
How do you transmit the power from the middle of the ocean to Kansas efficiently?
You don't. The article states that a vast majority of electricity consumption in the US takes place in the coastal states. Think of the large coastal population centers: NYC, LA, Boston, Seattle, SF, etc. If we can power those areas with ocean wind, we've tremendously reduced our fossil fuel consumption, even if Kansas is still burning coal.
You didn't read the parent to my post very carefully, then. He was referring to a lot more than just my name.
Seems like you didn't read it very carefully.
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity.
and...
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
I'm pretty sure there's a contractual agreement between the credit card company and the restaurant, which is set up to protect customers' credit card numbers. So, in that case, the waiter couldn't post your credit card number online. But, if he happened to know your name was Bob Jones (and he didn't get that information from your card), he could post your name and the fact that you eat there.
No. But if he wanted to put your name online, he could. Because that's all we're talking about, not credit card numbers. You're name isn't some form of privileged information.
Saying "I am taking my automatic to shoot a few rounds" when your gun is a semi-automatic is wrong.
No, it's not. If you were to say "fully-automatic", "automatic rifle", or even "automatic weapon", it would be safe to assume that you were referring to a continuous-fire type gun. But, if you simply say "automatic", without any other qualifiers (as in the example you provide), you are referring to a semi-auto handgun. It is simply common usage, in addition to being correct.
Automatic is referred to the type of weapon that when you hold the trigger it shoots more then one round, while semi-auto refers to a weapon that requires multiple pulls of the trigger to fire more then one round.
No, that's a common misconception. If a gun is "automatic", it simply means that one or more of the actions usually required of the shooter is, instead, done with the power of the firing explosion. That can encompass ejecting the spent casing (or revolving the cylinder in an automatic revolver), bringing a new round into firing position, cocking the firing mechanism, and possibly firing another bullet (in the case of a fully-automatic weapon). Any gun which does one or more of these things can be correctly referred to as "automatic".
Symbols change over time, so do words.
Couldn't agree with you more. But, in this case, given the usage we are discussing, the meaning hasn't changed.
P.S. That being said, I'm not familiar with non-US usage of the term "automatic". It could be that in England or Canada the word has the meaning you describe. But, not here.
Just because the term 'has been, or still" is used to refer to what you linked to doesn't mean it is correct. "Automatic" is modified by "semi" for a reason.
It is correct. "Automatic", when applied to handguns, refers to the automatic nature of using some of the force of the firing explosion to drive the works of the gun. An automatic handgun harnesses that force to eject the spent casing, bring another into firing position, and sometimes cock the gun. Previously, as with a single or double-action revolver, the cylinder was moved by the cocking of the hammer or by pulling the trigger. That's the "automatic" part. It need not refer to the continuous firing mechanism of a fully-automatic weapon.
The full name of the M1911 handgun is Automatic Pistol, Caliber.45, M1911. Indeed, there are even automatic revolvers. The use of the term "automatic" to refer to a semi-automatic handgun has existed for over 100 years, and continues to this day. Whenever someone says "automatic", and it is not followed by "rifle" or preceded by "fully", they almost always are speaking of a semi-automatic handgun. I have never heard it used otherwise. If someone says, "I shot off a few rounds with my automatic", or "I took my automatic to the range", it is safe to assume they are referring to a semi-automatic handgun.
I consider the blurring of automatic and semi-automatic small arms to be an Overton window thing, done on purpose, by people with an agenda.
No. The term "semi-automatic" is a neologism just like "wooden baseball bat". It did not need qualification until a newer technology became widespread. I have never sensed an ulterior motive from people using the term "automatic". It's simply a descriptive name, which has been used for 100 years.
well... thats what the parent meant by china owning the us. not saying that china can be independent of the us though
And what I'm saying is, we "own" China just as much as they "own" us. Either government has the power to destroy the other's economy, but at the price of their own being destroyed too.
amazing what a number of new neutron bombs on new nuclear subs (2-4 EACH YEAR for the last 4 years; and more are being built) can do if launched from the gulf of mexico.
And how, exactly, does any of that help China? Our nuclear retaliation would be overwhelming. China would be just as gone as us.
Fact is, there are millions upon millions of people that are perfectly happy installing wingnuts for a living, and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with that. But, I don't understand why it's my responsibility to subsidize those millions of Americans who dream of becoming wingnut installers.
My lifelong dream is to play in the NBA. Who do I have to slap a tariff on to make my dreams come true?
To completely and utterly destroy the US economy, all they need to do is not buy NEW government bonds.
If they aren't buying new government bonds, what are they going to do with all the dollars we pay them for their exports? Without exports, China's economy becomes just as destroyed as the US's. It's economic Mutually Assured Destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).
I don't think so. The remaining pieces of the rocket might be able to tell us quite a lot.
It could be the case that the North Koreans are bumping up against some of the same problems that we did 60 years ago, when we were developing our own rocket program. If we know what made it fail, we'll know what they'll have to change to make it work, and exactly what technological advancements NK will need for future rockets to be successful. We can target our intelligence/diplomatic/military energies on those precise technologies.
Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.
More knowledge is always better than less.
This might be a great opportunity to see exactly how far advanced their missile/rocket program is, assuming we've got salvage vessels in place to pick up the pieces.
You know what I'd do with a million bucks?
Two kernels at the same time.
That your past actions suggest what you will do in a given situation.
When I was a kid, I stuck my finger in an electrical socket, and got a pretty nasty shock. Does that make me more, or less, likely to do the same in the future? Your argument implies that one cannot learn from experience.
Besides, the current geo-political situation is different enough from that which existed at the tail end of WWII, that I don't believe any meaningful parallels can be drawn. When we dropped the bombs on Japan, not only did the Japanese not possess nuclear weapons, no one else did either. WWII was simply the last time that the offensive use of nuclear weapons could make any strategic sense for the US. The "given situation" that you speak of is likely to never reoccur.
The threat of MAD has prevented the use of nuclear arms in the modern age. But, MAD theory rests on some critical assumptions about the nature of the states involved. Not all of those assumptions hold for the government of NK. So, MAD is less of a threat to them. Which makes them more likely to use nuclear weapons than a nation who's hand is stayed by the threat of MAD.
You are suggesting that you cannot be judged by your past actions?
No. We should be judged for our use of nuclear weapons. I never implied otherwise.
That the past has no bearing on the future?
Of course it has bearing. But you've made no argument as to why our use of nuclear weapons in the past makes us more likely to use them in the future.
The reason why we were the only country to use nukes in an offensive manner, is because there was a very short window of time between the invention of nuclear weapons and the advent of MAD. Nobody else really had the chance.
Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how likely we are to use them now.
And I doubt you'd hesitate once vs russia or china if they attacked first.
That's kind of the point of MAD. You don't think Russia or China (or the USA) hasn't used them lately, because of some warm-fuzzy humanitarian reason, do you?
Nothing say north korea will attack first either [...]
Of course not. But, most people would agree that they are more likely (no matter how small that probability may be) to launch a first strike than the US, Russia, or China. They are a relatively small, backward, unstable, and unpredictable nation. They simply have less to lose.
There's no strategic rationale for them to build a nuclear bombThere's no strategic rationale for them to build a nuclear bomb
Sure there is. When was the last time the US invaded a nuclear power?
Begging the question, IMO. "See, he's acting innocent. Only the most hardened of criminals act innocent when confronted with their guilt, so he MUST be guilty of something!"
No. I think the argument goes something like this: An innocent person will proclaim his innocence. Most guilty people also proclaim their innocence.
The point is, you can't tell anything about the guilt or innocence of a person based on their statements regarding their own innocence. The statement is essentially meaningless.
I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?
Nope. This is criminal (Section 506(a)(1)(C)).
Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever?
I don't mean to defend the phone company (especially AT&T), but there are legitimate reasons to differentiate between different bits, both for the cell company and the consumer.
I want all my "voice" bits to have low latency, and high reliability. I don't mind if my web page loading pauses for a half second; but a half second pause in a conversation is less acceptable. They're both just bits. But most customers appreciate a distinction between the two.
Now, the cell network is not an unlimited pipe. There are a certain number of bits which can go through it over a specified period of time. But, people have an almost unlimited capacity to use all available bandwidth. So, you have to find some way to ration that bandwidth, while still retaining the distinctions between different "flavors" of bits.
AT&T has outright banned some activities on the iphone (tethering, 3G skype, 3G VOIP in general), as a way of rationing that limited bandwidth. They could also choose to implement price discrimination: charging customers more to tether, for example.
But, ultimately, they have to find a way to bring the "bandwidth actually used" number to at or below the "bandwidth available" number. All the while respecting the expectations of the consumers regarding different "flavors" of bits.
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
How do you transmit the power from the middle of the ocean to Kansas efficiently?
You don't. The article states that a vast majority of electricity consumption in the US takes place in the coastal states. Think of the large coastal population centers: NYC, LA, Boston, Seattle, SF, etc. If we can power those areas with ocean wind, we've tremendously reduced our fossil fuel consumption, even if Kansas is still burning coal.
I'm sure there are laws about international waters, but does the closest state own the rights to waters offshore?
Yep, they're called Territorial Waters. And a country's Exclusive Economic Zone ends 200 nautical miles from shore (with some exceptions).
And the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. They got their asses handed to them.
Why should a legislative body not require a quorum of some sort to act?
Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Seems like every five minutes, they're having a Quorum Call. It's boring.
Quorums make for bad TV.
You didn't read the parent to my post very carefully, then. He was referring to a lot more than just my name.
Seems like you didn't read it very carefully.
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity.
and...
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
I'm pretty sure there's a contractual agreement between the credit card company and the restaurant, which is set up to protect customers' credit card numbers. So, in that case, the waiter couldn't post your credit card number online. But, if he happened to know your name was Bob Jones (and he didn't get that information from your card), he could post your name and the fact that you eat there.
No. But if he wanted to put your name online, he could. Because that's all we're talking about, not credit card numbers. You're name isn't some form of privileged information.
Saying "I am taking my automatic to shoot a few rounds" when your gun is a semi-automatic is wrong.
No, it's not. If you were to say "fully-automatic", "automatic rifle", or even "automatic weapon", it would be safe to assume that you were referring to a continuous-fire type gun. But, if you simply say "automatic", without any other qualifiers (as in the example you provide), you are referring to a semi-auto handgun. It is simply common usage, in addition to being correct.
Automatic is referred to the type of weapon that when you hold the trigger it shoots more then one round, while semi-auto refers to a weapon that requires multiple pulls of the trigger to fire more then one round.
No, that's a common misconception. If a gun is "automatic", it simply means that one or more of the actions usually required of the shooter is, instead, done with the power of the firing explosion. That can encompass ejecting the spent casing (or revolving the cylinder in an automatic revolver), bringing a new round into firing position, cocking the firing mechanism, and possibly firing another bullet (in the case of a fully-automatic weapon). Any gun which does one or more of these things can be correctly referred to as "automatic".
Symbols change over time, so do words.
Couldn't agree with you more. But, in this case, given the usage we are discussing, the meaning hasn't changed.
P.S. That being said, I'm not familiar with non-US usage of the term "automatic". It could be that in England or Canada the word has the meaning you describe. But, not here.
Just because the term 'has been, or still" is used to refer to what you linked to doesn't mean it is correct. "Automatic" is modified by "semi" for a reason.
It is correct. "Automatic", when applied to handguns, refers to the automatic nature of using some of the force of the firing explosion to drive the works of the gun. An automatic handgun harnesses that force to eject the spent casing, bring another into firing position, and sometimes cock the gun. Previously, as with a single or double-action revolver, the cylinder was moved by the cocking of the hammer or by pulling the trigger. That's the "automatic" part. It need not refer to the continuous firing mechanism of a fully-automatic weapon.
The full name of the M1911 handgun is Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911. Indeed, there are even automatic revolvers. The use of the term "automatic" to refer to a semi-automatic handgun has existed for over 100 years, and continues to this day. Whenever someone says "automatic", and it is not followed by "rifle" or preceded by "fully", they almost always are speaking of a semi-automatic handgun. I have never heard it used otherwise. If someone says, "I shot off a few rounds with my automatic", or "I took my automatic to the range", it is safe to assume they are referring to a semi-automatic handgun.
I consider the blurring of automatic and semi-automatic small arms to be an Overton window thing, done on purpose, by people with an agenda.
No. The term "semi-automatic" is a neologism just like "wooden baseball bat". It did not need qualification until a newer technology became widespread. I have never sensed an ulterior motive from people using the term "automatic". It's simply a descriptive name, which has been used for 100 years.
well... thats what the parent meant by china owning the us. not saying that china can be independent of the us though
And what I'm saying is, we "own" China just as much as they "own" us. Either government has the power to destroy the other's economy, but at the price of their own being destroyed too.
What do you mean? It's fairly common usage.
"Automatic" can also refer to a semi-automatic handgun. I believe that's what he was referring to.
amazing what a number of new neutron bombs on new nuclear subs (2-4 EACH YEAR for the last 4 years; and more are being built) can do if launched from the gulf of mexico.
And how, exactly, does any of that help China? Our nuclear retaliation would be overwhelming. China would be just as gone as us.
if they decide to sell all of that, it will cause the dollar to crash and the us economy would be wiped out.
Yes, I do realize that. And, I also realize that course of action would devastate China's economy as surely as it would ours.
Fact is, there are millions upon millions of people that are perfectly happy installing wingnuts for a living, and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with that. But, I don't understand why it's my responsibility to subsidize those millions of Americans who dream of becoming wingnut installers.
My lifelong dream is to play in the NBA. Who do I have to slap a tariff on to make my dreams come true?
To completely and utterly destroy the US economy, all they need to do is not buy NEW government bonds.
If they aren't buying new government bonds, what are they going to do with all the dollars we pay them for their exports? Without exports, China's economy becomes just as destroyed as the US's. It's economic Mutually Assured Destruction.