Anecdote, to offer validity your point; A few years ago I was asked to implement a forum by my boss as part of a website we were building. I downloaded and implemented phpBB, and everything was hunky-dory. He invited me to the sales meeting to describe the product and demonstrate how easy it is to moderate and administrate.
I was asked how much this all cost, and I said "Well, we can't charge you for phpBB; It's free software. What you would pay is for the knowledge of setting it up and any support you require."
Thankfully the folks laughed and asked the sales guy the same question, but his face had gone the darkest colour of red I've ever seen a person go. I wasn't there much longer:D
I have no respect for sales staff; They are weasels barely any better than lawyers. I do, however, recognise that they make the money for the company by selling the stuff that's produced, and that they are a necessary evil which should be tolerated. Thankfully, working in the public sector, I don't have to deal with them.
Mod my parent post down, please. It's pretty much all factually inaccurate and corrected in responses (which should be modded up). To summarise, USAF drones are controlled from Nevada and not close by, Wikipedia states sensor packages report back 50Mb/s of data to local ground forces, or the operator by satellite, and there is no evidence of the UAV aquired by IraN being downed by GPS spoofing.
Maybe those DARPA guys have a directional EMP device in the basement somewhere. However, I can't help but think that anything powerful enough to down a craft several thousand feet in the air would cause significant collateral damage, as well as pull the fillings out of the operator's jaw.
When you say "pilot" you don't mean that in the "control the aircraft directly" sense of the word as, say, a fighter pilot would control a jet. I envision a guy with a laptop typing in commands at a prompt to instruct the aircraft to fly itself to a specific location and perform a specific action autonomously, and report back with the data.
From Wikipedia "The digital sensor data can be transmitted at up to 50 Mbit/s to a ground station in real time, either directly or through a communications satellite link."
Wish I'd read that before posting my other comment.
It doesn't get to the other side of the world. Drones are controlled from reasonably close by, and I would suspect they're fairly autonomous during flight. That drone brought down near the Iraq border was downed by spoofing GPS coordinates, telling it it was back at base and should land. Besides, the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, so I would suspect 500MB/s is downstream.
Plus, you're forgetting that the military always get the cool toys first. 500MB/s to the user will come to us regular Joe's eventually.
I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example.
To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.
Ha, good try. Your fake address is one "At $YourName's house for a kewl patray!" check in post + GPS coordinates away from being rendered useless.
See, I used to have a Facebook account. However all I ever ended up doing was confirming the data which was personal by refusing to allow it to be published.
I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc).
I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?
I would say that's roughly the ration of kills to deaths as the current (recently ended?) war in the Middle East, native population: USA. Seems to work pretty well for them.
I've had NOD32 at home for years. I wish I could install it at work. However, thanks to kickbacks to the local government, Sophos consistently quote 50% lower than I can get any competing product for.
Iran has threatened blockading the Straights anyway; That can only mean military escorts for freight vehicles passing through, which will only raise tensions. Or s it all just impotent posturing, as I'm hoping?
Yeah, done that a couple of times myself. I understood the point, though.
To reply to your post; I never said that Iranians didn't hate Western democracy. They can hate their current political leaders and America at the same time; They're not mutually exclusive activities. I don't know what they want, but I do know they don't want what they have right now.
No, but I might put a technical person on the interview panel. They don't even have to ask any questions; Just be there to gauge the responses, maybe answer questions the applicant may have (and gauge the nature of those questions). Even if they have no sway on the hiring policy, they may demonstrate that the employer cares enough about who they hire to get a technical view of the applicants. That in itself shows that your potential boss won't be a PHB, even if that's who you're interviewed by.
Apparently you have not been listening. The majority of Iranians are just as pissed off about this as you, and wish their government would stop it. However, their government has more guns and the standard of living hasn't descended to levels in Egypt or Syria yet. It'll get there soon, and then they'll the latest to join the Arab Spring. The Iranian people aren't the problem.
What I'm scared of is we have Cold War 2.0 in the Middle East. With troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran posturing in the Straights of Hormuz, it wouldn't take much to push the US to shift the carrier fleet over there and up the proposed trade embargo to a compete military blockade. I would personally not like that to happen; We've spent enough on pointless wars. However, we're dealing with political leaders who believe in religious fundamentalism. All bets on a measured and diplomatic response to any situation are off when you come up against that level of outright lunacy.
No. The initial settlers came over to get away from the oppression of their own religious ideals, but ended up oppressing the ideals of the nation they were settling. It's the same throughout history.
So essentially, your argument is that Arabs/Persians can't have nukes because they are so extremist they will nuke the world? Who are "they?" Is there any evidence "they" are irrational enough to initiate their assured destruction? Is there any evidence that these "extremist" (enough to decimate entire peoples) views are widespread?
No. Religious fundamentalists can't have nukes because they are so extremist they will nuke the world. "They" are the extremist regimes who hold significant political sway in the Middle East.
The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Syria (I'm probably forgetting some) have pretty convincingly demonstrated that they do not share the POV of their leaders (I believe that these sentiments were known to the west prior to Arab Spring).
I have the utmost respect and admiration for those demonstrating against the oppressive regimes in their countries; I do my token part by running Tor / I2P nodes to allow the continued free flow of information for those protests, as that's the most I can do from my place in the UK. The fact that these uprisings exist is proof enough (to me) that these reasonable people share the same view as me; Their current leaders cannot be trusted to safeguard their future.
On the other hand, I think you will find vast populations in the U.S. who are largely "ok" with the extermination of brown/foreign people either for religious reasons or reasons inspired by irrational propaganda.
I treat those people no better than the fundamentalists of foreign nations or other religions. As a recent poster on a different thread stated, it's a synecdochal error; The minority (fundamentalist Islam) used to incorrectly define the majority (Islam in general). I do not share that view.
Your argument seems to rest precipitously on similar grounds by implying that our culture is relatively advanced compared to theirs insomuch as we can make decisions for other sovereign peoples using our guns.
No? I'm saying that countries with the power to annihilate each other need to have stable and reasonable people at the helm. At no point would I condone invasion, and if it got to that point I would say it was "our" fault for not spotting the issue sooner.
Furthermore, using Enlightenment in this context is somewhat dubious, as least with respect to the US, where a plurality (if not outright majority) embraces theocratic rule (or at the very least, theocratic positions, appeals, etc)
Well, yeah, but I'm not American. Over here in the UK we like our leaders to have enough theological leanings to not be amoral despots, but not so much as they think others are to be feared.
Slashdot Mirror
Realtime true 3D video (moving PoV to any point in space) is the absolute best use I've seen for Kinect. For those who've not seen it, clicky
Screw Stereographic effects; I want to pan and see that Na'vi's ass! *Ahem*
Anecdote, to offer validity your point; A few years ago I was asked to implement a forum by my boss as part of a website we were building. I downloaded and implemented phpBB, and everything was hunky-dory. He invited me to the sales meeting to describe the product and demonstrate how easy it is to moderate and administrate.
:D
I was asked how much this all cost, and I said "Well, we can't charge you for phpBB; It's free software. What you would pay is for the knowledge of setting it up and any support you require."
Thankfully the folks laughed and asked the sales guy the same question, but his face had gone the darkest colour of red I've ever seen a person go. I wasn't there much longer
I have no respect for sales staff; They are weasels barely any better than lawyers. I do, however, recognise that they make the money for the company by selling the stuff that's produced, and that they are a necessary evil which should be tolerated. Thankfully, working in the public sector, I don't have to deal with them.
Mod my parent post down, please. It's pretty much all factually inaccurate and corrected in responses (which should be modded up). To summarise, USAF drones are controlled from Nevada and not close by, Wikipedia states sensor packages report back 50Mb/s of data to local ground forces, or the operator by satellite, and there is no evidence of the UAV aquired by IraN being downed by GPS spoofing.
Thanks to those posting corrections.
Maybe those DARPA guys have a directional EMP device in the basement somewhere. However, I can't help but think that anything powerful enough to down a craft several thousand feet in the air would cause significant collateral damage, as well as pull the fillings out of the operator's jaw.
When you say "pilot" you don't mean that in the "control the aircraft directly" sense of the word as, say, a fighter pilot would control a jet. I envision a guy with a laptop typing in commands at a prompt to instruct the aircraft to fly itself to a specific location and perform a specific action autonomously, and report back with the data.
From Wikipedia "The digital sensor data can be transmitted at up to 50 Mbit/s to a ground station in real time, either directly or through a communications satellite link."
Wish I'd read that before posting my other comment.
Yes, sorry. I don't have my Press hat on today. Please amend my post to have the word "Alleged" in the appropriate places.
Saying that, I didn't notice anyone saying that this wasn't the case either[dramatic ellipsis]
It doesn't get to the other side of the world. Drones are controlled from reasonably close by, and I would suspect they're fairly autonomous during flight. That drone brought down near the Iraq border was downed by spoofing GPS coordinates, telling it it was back at base and should land. Besides, the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, so I would suspect 500MB/s is downstream.
Plus, you're forgetting that the military always get the cool toys first. 500MB/s to the user will come to us regular Joe's eventually.
What's the fun of a wheelchair if you can't strap loads of wires and circuit boards to it?
Bashing in to people, then waiting for them to apologise. That must be a giggle.
Once you've come up with a mathematical proof for your demons, you too can be published in Nature or some such.
The added benefit is that nowadays you won't be burned at the stake for suggesting it!
I really, really hate to use this, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.
[Citation needed]. Yes, it looks like a copypaste of a website, but a source is always welcome.
I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example.
To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.
Ha, good try. Your fake address is one "At $YourName's house for a kewl patray!" check in post + GPS coordinates away from being rendered useless.
See, I used to have a Facebook account. However all I ever ended up doing was confirming the data which was personal by refusing to allow it to be published.
I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc).
I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?
*ratio.
God damn it...
I would say that's roughly the ration of kills to deaths as the current (recently ended?) war in the Middle East, native population: USA. Seems to work pretty well for them.
Pfff. Amateur hour.
In the UK, you get shot six times in the face for wearing a jacket in summer.
P.S There are quite a few more gamers than you think out in the country.
Is six fingers per hand considered an advantage or hindrance for CoD?
I jest! I jest!
I've had NOD32 at home for years. I wish I could install it at work. However, thanks to kickbacks to the local government, Sophos consistently quote 50% lower than I can get any competing product for.
Pisses me the fuck off.
Iran has threatened blockading the Straights anyway; That can only mean military escorts for freight vehicles passing through, which will only raise tensions. Or s it all just impotent posturing, as I'm hoping?
Yeah, done that a couple of times myself. I understood the point, though.
To reply to your post; I never said that Iranians didn't hate Western democracy. They can hate their current political leaders and America at the same time; They're not mutually exclusive activities. I don't know what they want, but I do know they don't want what they have right now.
No, but I might put a technical person on the interview panel. They don't even have to ask any questions; Just be there to gauge the responses, maybe answer questions the applicant may have (and gauge the nature of those questions). Even if they have no sway on the hiring policy, they may demonstrate that the employer cares enough about who they hire to get a technical view of the applicants. That in itself shows that your potential boss won't be a PHB, even if that's who you're interviewed by.
Apparently you have not been listening. The majority of Iranians are just as pissed off about this as you, and wish their government would stop it. However, their government has more guns and the standard of living hasn't descended to levels in Egypt or Syria yet. It'll get there soon, and then they'll the latest to join the Arab Spring. The Iranian people aren't the problem.
What I'm scared of is we have Cold War 2.0 in the Middle East. With troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran posturing in the Straights of Hormuz, it wouldn't take much to push the US to shift the carrier fleet over there and up the proposed trade embargo to a compete military blockade. I would personally not like that to happen; We've spent enough on pointless wars. However, we're dealing with political leaders who believe in religious fundamentalism. All bets on a measured and diplomatic response to any situation are off when you come up against that level of outright lunacy.
No. The initial settlers came over to get away from the oppression of their own religious ideals, but ended up oppressing the ideals of the nation they were settling. It's the same throughout history.
So essentially, your argument is that Arabs/Persians can't have nukes because they are so extremist they will nuke the world? Who are "they?" Is there any evidence "they" are irrational enough to initiate their assured destruction? Is there any evidence that these "extremist" (enough to decimate entire peoples) views are widespread?
No. Religious fundamentalists can't have nukes because they are so extremist they will nuke the world. "They" are the extremist regimes who hold significant political sway in the Middle East.
The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Syria (I'm probably forgetting some) have pretty convincingly demonstrated that they do not share the POV of their leaders (I believe that these sentiments were known to the west prior to Arab Spring).
I have the utmost respect and admiration for those demonstrating against the oppressive regimes in their countries; I do my token part by running Tor / I2P nodes to allow the continued free flow of information for those protests, as that's the most I can do from my place in the UK. The fact that these uprisings exist is proof enough (to me) that these reasonable people share the same view as me; Their current leaders cannot be trusted to safeguard their future.
On the other hand, I think you will find vast populations in the U.S. who are largely "ok" with the extermination of brown/foreign people either for religious reasons or reasons inspired by irrational propaganda.
I treat those people no better than the fundamentalists of foreign nations or other religions. As a recent poster on a different thread stated, it's a synecdochal error; The minority (fundamentalist Islam) used to incorrectly define the majority (Islam in general). I do not share that view.
Your argument seems to rest precipitously on similar grounds by implying that our culture is relatively advanced compared to theirs insomuch as we can make decisions for other sovereign peoples using our guns.
No? I'm saying that countries with the power to annihilate each other need to have stable and reasonable people at the helm. At no point would I condone invasion, and if it got to that point I would say it was "our" fault for not spotting the issue sooner.
Furthermore, using Enlightenment in this context is somewhat dubious, as least with respect to the US, where a plurality (if not outright majority) embraces theocratic rule (or at the very least, theocratic positions, appeals, etc)
Well, yeah, but I'm not American. Over here in the UK we like our leaders to have enough theological leanings to not be amoral despots, but not so much as they think others are to be feared.