At some point maybe. But I see the PC (including Laptops) to migrate dominance positions to follow the same patterns at the Mainframe (which are still not dead yet)
1970's Mainframe was absolute King No PC to speak of.
1980's Mainframe is king PC was a toy with a few Business applications
1990's Mainframe is considered dieing PC's began to dominate small and midsize companies reducing the needs to big expensive mainframes. Used for Big companies.
2000's Mainframes are still there, PC's are now indespensable and used by most businesses (the PC based servers has taken over the mainframe for most new task) Ultra Mobile Devices are appearing but mostly a toy with a few Business applications.
2010's Mainframes are limited to a few Old Legacy Stuff (too expensive to move off) or some very detailed performance related stuff (Modern Mainframes) Mobile devices get more ingrained into the business and every day use....
Now I see the PC moving away from the personal computer and to more of a high performance workstation usage. This will used mainly by software developers, and engineers for CAD and other high performance work. while the Mobile stuff will dominate every man Computing. As for the mainframe more old legacy systems will go away but still have a market for the really high performance needs.
The difference is that home users never had mainframes in their house, nor had any reason to do so. Of course most home users really don't do anything that requires more power than a somewhat high end computer from 10 years ago. Operating systems have become more bloated and some programs have too. But in reality I would guess that most people surf the web and email each other. Which is a good reason why all of these new devices are doing so well. Most people don't need a lot of power for what they use a computer for. Obviously there are exceptions. Hard core gamers on the other hand are probably going to want the most high powered system they can get. I always used to laugh at stock traders in the 90's and early 2000's. They would buy screaming fast computers in the belief that they could somehow trade faster on them.
I agree that people who do a lot of video editing, CAD and such will still want workstations. But I still don't think that desktops are going to go away as fast as or in a similar fashion to mainframes. Most people never had a mainframe.
I do some video editing and play FPS on occasion. My fastest computer is a Phenom X4 9950 with a couple of SSD and SCSI drives, a decent VGA, etc that I got a few years ago. I prefer to do more on it than my laptop I have for work. It's an i7, but due to it being a laptop, it is slower at most things than my old desktop. Granted I could get a faster processor to cut video encoding times down. But I also have a X2 6400 that I also use from time to time to encode video at the same time. I also tend to sit at a desk when I use a computer. I'm also not that interested in using it when I'm on my couch. It'll be interesting to see how things go, but I think it's going to be a good many years until the PC is dead.
Look, I'm not saying Romney is the second coming or that his unspecified plan is going to work. Or that I even want him to be president. But there a hell of a difference between $5 trillion over ten years and $860 billion. I'm so fucking tired of the bullshit that both parties are claiming. I think I got pretty burned out on President Obama at the beginning of his term. This was supposed to be the "most transparent government in history" and unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% and the ocean levels were going to recede, blah, blah, wretch. To make matters worse, no plans are really designed by any one in office to matter past the next election. When they do, all of the painful shit happens after they are going to be out of office. Not that, that ever happens because the next person in office over turns it all anyhow. It's similar to the debt reduction that Bill Clinton put in place. Congress would have had to not increase spending until 2008 or 20010, or when ever the fuck it was. Even without 9-11, Congress would have found some reason to spend more money. That's what they historically seem to do, no matter which party is in control. I've voted for independents in every election in my life except for two. Sadly there isn't even an independent worth voting for this time.
Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road.
Please stop regurgitating campaign bullshit as fact. The Washington Post is calling bullshit on this one. Hell, even Stephanie Cutter admits it's not true.
And don't get me started on Santa Claus. How does he deliver toys to over a billion homes in one night? Science offers no plausible explanation for that.
Relative velocity time dilation has been understood for years. Please leave your geek card at the door on the way out.
It was transported back to Quebec via a 16 tractor trailer, heavily guarded (and presumably heavily armed)
I'd like to know how somebody was able get access to the strategic reserve of anything. But I guess if an 82 year old nun can break into a nuclear facility damn near anything's possible. But then to be able to leave with 16 tractor trailers worth of it? If the convoy returning it was "heavily guarded" was the facility not guarded too? Did the thieves steal it using a 16 vehicle convoy? Or did somebody who worked there smuggle it out one bottle at a time in their lunch box over the last 120 years? And, more to the point, what in the hell were they planning to do with it? Was a Telly Savalas look-a-like stroking a white Persian cat while monologuing about world domination through controlling the worlds maple syrup supply? Or was it part of a bigger plot to take over the world by controlling breakfast food?
Strange. I just got a call from someone on a bad connection that made him sound like he had an electronic sounding voice Bad connection or not, he was really monotone and seemed manically depressed. He kept going on about having a brain the size of a planet and how bad his life was at Foxconn.
If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.
There used to be a saying at speed week. "If you want a tee shirt, go 200 mph. If you want respect, you need to go at least 300 mph." It's been a while since I've paid attention, but there used to be a lot of WWII drop tanks that were converted into vehicles. I don't recall much about rocket powered ones after the Budweiser rocket. It just feels like cheating if you are basically flying a missile really low and dragging some wheels along for the ride. Granted, you have to have a pair to be willing to ride something like that, but it's still a lot easier than something that's wheel driven.
I agree, that's a big part of it. Plus if you want at clam-shell computer, why not get a regular full powered laptop? What's considered a "laptop" really isn't all that big these days. For work I have a Dell "desk-top replacement" laptop and it's a hell of a lot smaller than what they called a regular laptop just a few years ago. If you want a small thin low powered device, why would you not want an iPad or other tablet over a ultra-thing? Or just a smart-phone for that matter. Hell my current phone has a 4 or 5 inch display and a quad-core in it.
If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.
My daughter was running for treasurer at her school a couple of weeks ago. She wanted to print single sided 1/4 sized $5 bills to use as leaves on a tree for her posters. It went with her campaign slogan, "Money doesn't grow on trees, so let me help you spend it wisely". We discovered that no matter what size she tried to print, the printer would only print the top half of a page and state something about the legal use of the printer on the lower half. She set it up to print on the top half and it worked out fine, but I thought it was pretty cool that the printer was smart enough to figure that out.
It makes me wonder how long until these types of checks are put into place on 3D printers. I would think for guns it wouldn't be too hard. It would need to look for specific diameter barrels and to check if it's rifled or not.
Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator.
it's not really clear if you are saying this is a good or bad thing. it's good in that there's no radiation, so it damages the target and the target only (if it hits), not the rest of the world for decades. the bad thing is that fact might make it see a lot more use than nuclear weapons.
That's because I'm not sure. Dropping rocks from orbit would be a good last option to have I suppose. But it's pretty damn indiscriminate and will certainly kill a lot of civilians. That's pretty much how I feel about developing this kind of tech. It would be good to have if it's needed, but I hate the thought of what it means if it does get used.
The rational, and chronologically not so young part of me has to wonder if it's really worth the cost. Can all of the issues with these be overcome and does the cost of doing so make it worth pursuing. Also, the cynical side of me wonders what will happen if we continue with developing this kind of tech. Can it be used to nullify the the "no nukes in space" treaty? Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator. But the young geek side of me thinks these are truly awesome and should be developed. Firing metal slugs would be cheaper than cruise missiles. Plus they would be safer to carry around. Perhaps the tech can be modified for launching satellites cheaply or somehow helping our space program. Or we may need them to arm our moon base against the oncoming alien hoard. Or we can miniaturize them to fit on dolphins, for protection from shark mounted lasers beams.
He was specifically talking about Harleys.... No other bikes on the road are obnoxious like those... and as far as I know, only Harley is allowed to breach exhaust level laws because it 'impedes capitalism' (based on a court ruling whereby the loud exhaust was a sales feature).
It's been a while since I've owned a bike, or looked into one. But unless somethings changed, Harleys don't come from the factory with that loud ass exhaust. That's done after the purchase, usually by the dealer, or at the request of the buyer. I can't say I've ever owned one but had a lot of friends who did. But that was during the times when AMF owned them and I wouldn't even consider one after seeing the issues those had. I know they make a better bike now, but even so I can't get the image of a friends bike sitting along the road with a engine that basically split in half and fell off the bike out of my head.
As it stands the F22 was designed to meet the goal of taking on 16 - 1 odds and winning
That's a nonsense talking point if I ever heard one. What are you a conservative in the US Air force? You can design for whatever the hell you want, that doesn't mean it can actually do it in practice. You think the Brazillians, or the North Koreans or god knows who is going to show up to a fight with 20 year old aircraft that you can take down 16 to 1? Right. Depends on who you're up against. Pakistani F16 C/D's are a very different problem than a North Korean MIG 21, or a Saudi EuroFighter. In a 1v1 against a Eurofighter at long range I'd be thinking it's a lot more about the missiles than the airplane, and in that situation both aircraft don't look all that promising.
Frankly, against F-16's, 16-1 probably isn't unreasonable. F-16's are "jack of all trades", not superiority fighters. An F-18 would be a much better match. But even those have performed rather poorly in exercises against F-22s. Twelve F-22s managed to take out 144 F-18's in exercises. AN F-16 did manage to take out a raptor during one exercise, but that was because the F-16 was "re-spawned" almost instantaneously after the F-22 shot it down. I'm pretty sure aircraft don't get to do that in real life. I'm not as familiar with Eurofighers, but they are more of a F15/F16 class airframe. So, no I don't think they'd be much of a match either. The Eurofighter did pretty well recently in close in dog fighting. But the F-22 was also under restriction due to this issue. I'd like to see how that would go once this problem is resolved. Still, it's not very likely a F-22 is going to be in a situation like that either.
One of the huge advantages that F-22s have that no one seems to mention is an incredible capability to work in conjunction with other F-22's and other platforms. So not only do they have the ability to link fire control with each other, they can also target enemies for other aircraft. Since we're talking hypotheticals sometime in the future. One of the hopeful platforms to link these to is the Boeing YAL-1. So before and/or after they've used their own on-board ordnance, they could be cooking up drones for dinner. Or launching missiles from another platform. Or targeting for AAA.
Thanks... brought a tear to my eye to watch it though. To think my country did this before we inevitably succumbed to the greed of Wall Street, the corruption of Congress, and the ineptitude of the FED.
What's really a shame is what a miserable decline in our space program I thought the shuttle was when it was announced and put into service. Now all these years later I long for the days when it was in service. Our space program has become an embarrassment in regards to manned space fight. Hell, we took pride in the times the Russians had to hitch a ride on the shuttle. Now we can't even put a man in LEO our selves. One the flip side, the unmanned exploration programs are still quite impressive. For now.
Personally I tend to assume that buzzword use is inversely proportional to comprehension.
I couldn't agree more. However there must be a majority that do not think the same way. Otherwise we would not have to endure the this kind of BS speak on a regular basis.
You know, I almost wonder if anyone has ever sat on a phone conference and just parroted whatever comes up on that thing. I think with a typical non-technical tech PM talking to another non-technical tech PM (something I've actually seen a lot) this could actually fly. Would be at least fun to try!
I don't know, but I'm going to try it. It reads like just about everything I hear coming out of most MBAs.
What I really wonder is if you had two people reading quotes from this back and forth, how may people would think they knew what they were talking about.
Young's main concern is that your average MP3 file only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording
So lets see. The cost of a CD is about $15 and contains 12 tracks on average (rough guess). That's a value of $1.25 per song. If pirating it only gets you 5% of that shouldn't the restitution for pirating music be 6 cents per song? Actually if you are pirating it you also save the music label the physical cost of the CD, case, and printing a label. Not to mention shipping and warehousing. Why the music industry doesn't figure out a way to make their customers happy is beyond me. Not that I'm an advocate of piracy, but the way the *IAA works is pretty crazy.
It's been almost two years since I renewed my license in Virginia too. What's even funnier is that the guy ahead of me had a tee shirt on with Bob Marley on it. The print of Bob smiling on the shirt screwed up the camera (or operator) somehow. After several attempts they made him turn his shirt inside-out.
I don't know if the cause was Bin Laden and his cowardly attacks on this country.
- Going undercover into enemy territory for a long time
Yes, this is very difficult in the US where diversity is the norm. I mean, holy shit, they had to keep from firing guns in the air or leave the RPG at home to blend in. That's fucking amazing!
- Defying enemy security while not standing out from the crowd
What security? This was pre-9-11. Walking up to the airplane w/o shooting anyone? Damn that must have been difficult.
- with only a handful of people, overpowering airplane staff and keeping a horde of the enemy cowed into submission
Only because prior to that day, no one was bat shit crazy enough to hijack a plane and do what they did. If someone robs a bank, they generally don't shoot everybody when they leave. Or blow themselves and everybody up after getting the cash. That didn't work out so well on the fourth plane, did it? And pre 9-11 do you really find overpowering the staff of an airplane manly? A group of mostly women and somehow they managed to overpower them. They must have been Chuck Norris like to be able to do that.
I'm not sure what you think is so blatantly cowardly about it.
Because the little pussy did not do it himself. He convinced other fools to do it for him and then hid like a little bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
A chair counts as a device. They should start making them. Then as an added service they can make them fly.
At some point maybe. But I see the PC (including Laptops) to migrate dominance positions to follow the same patterns at the Mainframe (which are still not dead yet)
1970's Mainframe was absolute King No PC to speak of. 1980's Mainframe is king PC was a toy with a few Business applications 1990's Mainframe is considered dieing PC's began to dominate small and midsize companies reducing the needs to big expensive mainframes. Used for Big companies. 2000's Mainframes are still there, PC's are now indespensable and used by most businesses (the PC based servers has taken over the mainframe for most new task) Ultra Mobile Devices are appearing but mostly a toy with a few Business applications. 2010's Mainframes are limited to a few Old Legacy Stuff (too expensive to move off) or some very detailed performance related stuff (Modern Mainframes) Mobile devices get more ingrained into the business and every day use....
Now I see the PC moving away from the personal computer and to more of a high performance workstation usage. This will used mainly by software developers, and engineers for CAD and other high performance work. while the Mobile stuff will dominate every man Computing. As for the mainframe more old legacy systems will go away but still have a market for the really high performance needs.
The difference is that home users never had mainframes in their house, nor had any reason to do so. Of course most home users really don't do anything that requires more power than a somewhat high end computer from 10 years ago. Operating systems have become more bloated and some programs have too. But in reality I would guess that most people surf the web and email each other. Which is a good reason why all of these new devices are doing so well. Most people don't need a lot of power for what they use a computer for. Obviously there are exceptions. Hard core gamers on the other hand are probably going to want the most high powered system they can get. I always used to laugh at stock traders in the 90's and early 2000's. They would buy screaming fast computers in the belief that they could somehow trade faster on them.
I agree that people who do a lot of video editing, CAD and such will still want workstations. But I still don't think that desktops are going to go away as fast as or in a similar fashion to mainframes. Most people never had a mainframe.
I do some video editing and play FPS on occasion. My fastest computer is a Phenom X4 9950 with a couple of SSD and SCSI drives, a decent VGA, etc that I got a few years ago. I prefer to do more on it than my laptop I have for work. It's an i7, but due to it being a laptop, it is slower at most things than my old desktop. Granted I could get a faster processor to cut video encoding times down. But I also have a X2 6400 that I also use from time to time to encode video at the same time. I also tend to sit at a desk when I use a computer. I'm also not that interested in using it when I'm on my couch. It'll be interesting to see how things go, but I think it's going to be a good many years until the PC is dead.
Look, I'm not saying Romney is the second coming or that his unspecified plan is going to work. Or that I even want him to be president. But there a hell of a difference between $5 trillion over ten years and $860 billion. I'm so fucking tired of the bullshit that both parties are claiming. I think I got pretty burned out on President Obama at the beginning of his term. This was supposed to be the "most transparent government in history" and unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% and the ocean levels were going to recede, blah, blah, wretch. To make matters worse, no plans are really designed by any one in office to matter past the next election. When they do, all of the painful shit happens after they are going to be out of office. Not that, that ever happens because the next person in office over turns it all anyhow. It's similar to the debt reduction that Bill Clinton put in place. Congress would have had to not increase spending until 2008 or 20010, or when ever the fuck it was. Even without 9-11, Congress would have found some reason to spend more money. That's what they historically seem to do, no matter which party is in control. I've voted for independents in every election in my life except for two. Sadly there isn't even an independent worth voting for this time.
Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road.
Please stop regurgitating campaign bullshit as fact. The Washington Post is calling bullshit on this one. Hell, even Stephanie Cutter admits it's not true.
Agent Smith. He pulls this kind of shit every so often. Just wait until he finds a way to bring The Lawgiver to the "real" world.
I know Santa's big, but he ain't big enough to bend space time!!!
That's just what he looks like when you can see him.
And don't get me started on Santa Claus. How does he deliver toys to over a billion homes in one night? Science offers no plausible explanation for that.
Relative velocity time dilation has been understood for years. Please leave your geek card at the door on the way out.
It was transported back to Quebec via a 16 tractor trailer, heavily guarded (and presumably heavily armed)
I'd like to know how somebody was able get access to the strategic reserve of anything. But I guess if an 82 year old nun can break into a nuclear facility damn near anything's possible. But then to be able to leave with 16 tractor trailers worth of it? If the convoy returning it was "heavily guarded" was the facility not guarded too? Did the thieves steal it using a 16 vehicle convoy? Or did somebody who worked there smuggle it out one bottle at a time in their lunch box over the last 120 years? And, more to the point, what in the hell were they planning to do with it? Was a Telly Savalas look-a-like stroking a white Persian cat while monologuing about world domination through controlling the worlds maple syrup supply? Or was it part of a bigger plot to take over the world by controlling breakfast food?
Strange. I just got a call from someone on a bad connection that made him sound like he had an electronic sounding voice Bad connection or not, he was really monotone and seemed manically depressed. He kept going on about having a brain the size of a planet and how bad his life was at Foxconn.
If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.
There used to be a saying at speed week. "If you want a tee shirt, go 200 mph. If you want respect, you need to go at least 300 mph." It's been a while since I've paid attention, but there used to be a lot of WWII drop tanks that were converted into vehicles. I don't recall much about rocket powered ones after the Budweiser rocket. It just feels like cheating if you are basically flying a missile really low and dragging some wheels along for the ride. Granted, you have to have a pair to be willing to ride something like that, but it's still a lot easier than something that's wheel driven.
iPad.
I agree, that's a big part of it. Plus if you want at clam-shell computer, why not get a regular full powered laptop? What's considered a "laptop" really isn't all that big these days. For work I have a Dell "desk-top replacement" laptop and it's a hell of a lot smaller than what they called a regular laptop just a few years ago. If you want a small thin low powered device, why would you not want an iPad or other tablet over a ultra-thing? Or just a smart-phone for that matter. Hell my current phone has a 4 or 5 inch display and a quad-core in it.
If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.
My daughter was running for treasurer at her school a couple of weeks ago. She wanted to print single sided 1/4 sized $5 bills to use as leaves on a tree for her posters. It went with her campaign slogan, "Money doesn't grow on trees, so let me help you spend it wisely". We discovered that no matter what size she tried to print, the printer would only print the top half of a page and state something about the legal use of the printer on the lower half. She set it up to print on the top half and it worked out fine, but I thought it was pretty cool that the printer was smart enough to figure that out.
It makes me wonder how long until these types of checks are put into place on 3D printers. I would think for guns it wouldn't be too hard. It would need to look for specific diameter barrels and to check if it's rifled or not.
Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator.
it's not really clear if you are saying this is a good or bad thing. it's good in that there's no radiation, so it damages the target and the target only (if it hits), not the rest of the world for decades. the bad thing is that fact might make it see a lot more use than nuclear weapons.
That's because I'm not sure. Dropping rocks from orbit would be a good last option to have I suppose. But it's pretty damn indiscriminate and will certainly kill a lot of civilians. That's pretty much how I feel about developing this kind of tech. It would be good to have if it's needed, but I hate the thought of what it means if it does get used.
The rational, and chronologically not so young part of me has to wonder if it's really worth the cost. Can all of the issues with these be overcome and does the cost of doing so make it worth pursuing. Also, the cynical side of me wonders what will happen if we continue with developing this kind of tech. Can it be used to nullify the the "no nukes in space" treaty? Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator. But the young geek side of me thinks these are truly awesome and should be developed. Firing metal slugs would be cheaper than cruise missiles. Plus they would be safer to carry around. Perhaps the tech can be modified for launching satellites cheaply or somehow helping our space program. Or we may need them to arm our moon base against the oncoming alien hoard. Or we can miniaturize them to fit on dolphins, for protection from shark mounted lasers beams.
He was specifically talking about Harleys.... No other bikes on the road are obnoxious like those... and as far as I know, only Harley is allowed to breach exhaust level laws because it 'impedes capitalism' (based on a court ruling whereby the loud exhaust was a sales feature).
It's been a while since I've owned a bike, or looked into one. But unless somethings changed, Harleys don't come from the factory with that loud ass exhaust. That's done after the purchase, usually by the dealer, or at the request of the buyer. I can't say I've ever owned one but had a lot of friends who did. But that was during the times when AMF owned them and I wouldn't even consider one after seeing the issues those had. I know they make a better bike now, but even so I can't get the image of a friends bike sitting along the road with a engine that basically split in half and fell off the bike out of my head.
As it stands the F22 was designed to meet the goal of taking on 16 - 1 odds and winning
That's a nonsense talking point if I ever heard one. What are you a conservative in the US Air force? You can design for whatever the hell you want, that doesn't mean it can actually do it in practice. You think the Brazillians, or the North Koreans or god knows who is going to show up to a fight with 20 year old aircraft that you can take down 16 to 1? Right. Depends on who you're up against. Pakistani F16 C/D's are a very different problem than a North Korean MIG 21, or a Saudi EuroFighter. In a 1v1 against a Eurofighter at long range I'd be thinking it's a lot more about the missiles than the airplane, and in that situation both aircraft don't look all that promising.
Frankly, against F-16's, 16-1 probably isn't unreasonable. F-16's are "jack of all trades", not superiority fighters. An F-18 would be a much better match. But even those have performed rather poorly in exercises against F-22s. Twelve F-22s managed to take out 144 F-18's in exercises. AN F-16 did manage to take out a raptor during one exercise, but that was because the F-16 was "re-spawned" almost instantaneously after the F-22 shot it down. I'm pretty sure aircraft don't get to do that in real life. I'm not as familiar with Eurofighers, but they are more of a F15/F16 class airframe. So, no I don't think they'd be much of a match either. The Eurofighter did pretty well recently in close in dog fighting. But the F-22 was also under restriction due to this issue. I'd like to see how that would go once this problem is resolved. Still, it's not very likely a F-22 is going to be in a situation like that either.
One of the huge advantages that F-22s have that no one seems to mention is an incredible capability to work in conjunction with other F-22's and other platforms. So not only do they have the ability to link fire control with each other, they can also target enemies for other aircraft. Since we're talking hypotheticals sometime in the future. One of the hopeful platforms to link these to is the Boeing YAL-1. So before and/or after they've used their own on-board ordnance, they could be cooking up drones for dinner. Or launching missiles from another platform. Or targeting for AAA.
I doubt it. I think you're looking more at what we saw in Stealth.
I hope not. That AI was like HALs whiny little emo brother.
I suggest we replace Bill's icon not with a generic suit, but with a chair.
As long as it's a flying chair, I'll second that.
Thanks... brought a tear to my eye to watch it though. To think my country did this before we inevitably succumbed to the greed of Wall Street, the corruption of Congress, and the ineptitude of the FED.
What's really a shame is what a miserable decline in our space program I thought the shuttle was when it was announced and put into service. Now all these years later I long for the days when it was in service. Our space program has become an embarrassment in regards to manned space fight. Hell, we took pride in the times the Russians had to hitch a ride on the shuttle. Now we can't even put a man in LEO our selves. One the flip side, the unmanned exploration programs are still quite impressive. For now.
First, beer surviving the holocaust is not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars.
I have to disagree with you. It was a rather important first step to decide if it's even worthwhile trying to survive the holocaust.
Personally I tend to assume that buzzword use is inversely proportional to comprehension.
I couldn't agree more. However there must be a majority that do not think the same way. Otherwise we would not have to endure the this kind of BS speak on a regular basis.
You know, I almost wonder if anyone has ever sat on a phone conference and just parroted whatever comes up on that thing. I think with a typical non-technical tech PM talking to another non-technical tech PM (something I've actually seen a lot) this could actually fly. Would be at least fun to try!
I don't know, but I'm going to try it. It reads like just about everything I hear coming out of most MBAs.
What I really wonder is if you had two people reading quotes from this back and forth, how may people would think they knew what they were talking about.
Young's main concern is that your average MP3 file only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording
So lets see. The cost of a CD is about $15 and contains 12 tracks on average (rough guess). That's a value of $1.25 per song. If pirating it only gets you 5% of that shouldn't the restitution for pirating music be 6 cents per song? Actually if you are pirating it you also save the music label the physical cost of the CD, case, and printing a label. Not to mention shipping and warehousing. Why the music industry doesn't figure out a way to make their customers happy is beyond me. Not that I'm an advocate of piracy, but the way the *IAA works is pretty crazy.
It's been almost two years since I renewed my license in Virginia too. What's even funnier is that the guy ahead of me had a tee shirt on with Bob Marley on it. The print of Bob smiling on the shirt screwed up the camera (or operator) somehow. After several attempts they made him turn his shirt inside-out.
I don't know if the cause was Bin Laden and his cowardly attacks on this country.
- Going undercover into enemy territory for a long time
Yes, this is very difficult in the US where diversity is the norm. I mean, holy shit, they had to keep from firing guns in the air or leave the RPG at home to blend in. That's fucking amazing!
- Defying enemy security while not standing out from the crowd
What security? This was pre-9-11. Walking up to the airplane w/o shooting anyone? Damn that must have been difficult.
- with only a handful of people, overpowering airplane staff and keeping a horde of the enemy cowed into submission
Only because prior to that day, no one was bat shit crazy enough to hijack a plane and do what they did. If someone robs a bank, they generally don't shoot everybody when they leave. Or blow themselves and everybody up after getting the cash. That didn't work out so well on the fourth plane, did it? And pre 9-11 do you really find overpowering the staff of an airplane manly? A group of mostly women and somehow they managed to overpower them. They must have been Chuck Norris like to be able to do that.
I'm not sure what you think is so blatantly cowardly about it.
Because the little pussy did not do it himself. He convinced other fools to do it for him and then hid like a little bitch.