Actually, I'd say that tens of millions sounds pretty cheap.:)
But that's okay, because you're independently wealthy, right? Right? Hello?
Re:This relates to my theory on lawyers, and why t
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 1
make so much more than IT people. All the lawyers references books are bound in leather and make matching sets, making an expensive, intimidating wall of knowledge buttressing their skills.
Having an accredited undergraduate degree and a BS (a total of at least 7 years in school) vs. a one-week training seminar and an MCSE could have something to do with it too.
If we're stuck with these guys insisting that they're engineers, and the term has gotten common usage, then we obviously need a heirarchy.
Wannabe Engineer: Application "Engineers" and Network "Engineers." Requirement: You're the guy down the street that "knows stuff about computers." A degree in IS, a diploma from ITT Tech and Certifications are all optional.
I'm not an Engineer, But I Play One At Work: Software "Engineers." Requirement: A CS degree. You think you're cool because you hack XML. You think you know stuff about computers, but you couldn't so much as recognize a K-Map if it slapped you in the face. You've heard of "assembly" programming, but you've never actually seen it.
Real Engineer (junior grade): Electrical/Computer Engineers. Requirement: A B.S. in Electrical Engineering. You actually know something. You eat Verilog for breakfast and assembly for lunch. You could probably design a power supply for your computer from scratch, but it wouldn't have good voltage regulation.
Real Engineer: Requirement: PE. You think you are a demigod, and all the Engineer(j.g.)'s simultaneously despise you and want to be you. You dream in SPICE and FORTRAN and scorn those who rely on silly schematic capture tools, since you write all of your netlists in vi.
I guess I ought to clarify one thing. I fully supported the first gulf war. I really think it's okay for us to go play "good neighbor" when people are invading each other, and we had very strong international support. When I say it was botched, I strongly believe we should have started what we finished (I believe you expressed a similar position earlier). Maybe we would have caught some ill will from our Arab allies, but I think they would have gotten over it. As for suicide bombers, those guys found a reason to hate us even without killing Saddam, and they would have hated us even if Gulf I had never happened. We like Israel, and that's enough for them. Anyway, if we had just taken Saddam out to begin with, we wouldn't even have this problem right now, and I think that's what we should have done.
Really, I have never quite figured out why we dropped the ball within spitting distance of Baghdad. Perhaps we underestimated his (amazing) resilience, perhaps we buckled to our Arab allies. But look where we are now.
I was always a staunch supporter of Bush (I), but damn, if there's on thing I think he botched...
if it can be had on the cheap -- patience and a couple of concessions -- then get it. One way or the other, we need not denigrate them as "old Europe" -- whatever that means..
I'm not sure about the "old Europe" thing either. In any case, name calling probably won't get us anywhere. As far as patience and concessions, we'll have to see how far that gets us. I think that a lot of people in Congress prefer a Security Council resolution before they put their stamp on a war, but like I said, if we really did get strong international support (which we don't have right now), even minus France and the SC resolution they could take with them, I think the support would probably be there.
North Korea worries me plenty, especially because they have so little going for them aside from a nasty weapon and extortion. Iraq has oil, a lot of it (ever wonder why Hussein doesn't just kick back and get rich? pass around the money and everyone will love and fear him). And I hate to be a nag (no, I love it), but where the HELL is Osama?
Honestly, South Korea worries me almost as much. Now, I say that being an American who loves Korea at least as much as anyone who is not a native of that land. I have lived among them, spoken their language, eaten their food, and lived their culture. I love those people dearly. However, there are a LOT of people there who believe that America's agenda is to keep the two Koreas separate. I spent a lot of time in Kwang-Ju, the city that had the bloody riots in 1980, and I had to learn to breathe tear gas pretty frequently. Koreans, in general, are about as proud and independent a people I know of (they've had to be to survive all of the bloody incursions by the rest of Asia and still maintain anything resembling a cultural identity), and the feeling that America is ruling them to some degree is almost universal. This REALLY bothers them, and I believe that any military action on our part against the North would be seen as a further enforcement of our willful separation of North and South. This could quickly destroy any good will we have with the people, and could put our alliance with them on very shaky ground. The argument that if we left then the North would take them over isn't all-powerful either. I had people tell me, to my face, that they didn't care, as long as the Koreas were reunited. The only ones who seemed to really love America (they all loved Americans, as long as they weren't soldiers -- go figure) were the really old folks who lived through the war, and could remember some American GI saving them or their family. I met an 80 year old man who spoke to us as though we were older than him simply because of an American GI, whose name he could still remember and almost pronounce correctly. Maybe it will take another round of that before the current generation decides we're okay, but I'd hate to see it. In any case, if we do decide to go after the North, it could end up being very difficult for lack of a willing host.
The Peacekeeper is capable of carrying 10 warheads and 1 telemetry vehicle. With that payload, the Re-entry System is full. The RS constitutes the entire nose cone area of the launch vehicle. To add more warheads, you would have to design a completely new delivery vehicle. Current treaty obligations do not mandate 10 RVs. They eliminate MIRVs altogether. No existing ICBM is capable of carrying "dozens" of RVs.
After all, there are consequences to a war, like dead people
And sometimes there are consequences to no war. Next time you have a cute comment like that, at least log in and take responsibility for your opinion. It's hard to take you seriously when your opinion isn't even important enough to you that you are willing to take ownership for it.
I think we are attributing too much significance to France and the U.N. here. I'm not some John Bircher who thinks the U.N. is some liberal conspiracy out to take away my gun, but I do think the U.N. thinks too much of itself. As has been stated, U.N. resolutions, like World Court rulings, are obeyed only when it is convenient or advantageous, which is to be expected from a body that has no power to enforce its decisions other than than those provided by its members on a voluntary basis. The U.N. is kind of like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, only weaker. It's a great place for nations to get together and agree or disagree or compromise, but ultimately, its about as meaningful as Slashdot Karma if somebody doesn't like the outcome. The Security Council is constructed in a manner calculated to prevent it from being able to do anything important or controversial. In short, let's say that there is a motion for a Security Council resolution, and we get everybody to go along except France, who vetoes the resolution. What does that really mean, except that we have one less "supporter" (whatever we decide that means)? I honestly believe that if we (hypothetically) had strong international support from everybody except France, even without a Security Council resolution, the Senate would vote to support military action with the "Yeas" numbering well into the 90's.
As for North Korea, I've got to give you that point. I personally believe they're a more imminent danger than Iraq, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them next on our list.
Yes, Hussein is interfering with our search for proof, but that doesn't prove he's got what we're looking for
I think the problem with this is that it's not too hard to hide stuff if he does have it. The U.N. is asking him to account for weapon materials they already believe that he has, and he has failed to do so. I really don't put much stock in the weapons inspection until Hussein shows some genuine, pro-active cooperation.
Notice Bush at least tentatively considering exile as an option for Hussein -- not that he'd ever accept it
I don't think you give Bush enough credit on this. The fact that he offered it put him in a position that would have made it difficult for him to turn Saddam down if he consented. I don't think he really expected Saddam to accept, but I would certainly have liked to see it happen.
absolutely yes bloodless methods of warfare are desirable, to save lives on both sides. After all, it is the victory and not the killing that, for us, is supposed to be the point.
Indeed, no warfare is the optimal solution. Like I said, I'd love to see Saddam surrender and for this whole thing to come to a bloodless end. If that can't happen, then I'd much rather we use our technological advantage to make sure that as little blood is spilled on both sides as possible. There are people very close to me who are first in line to get deployed there, and I'd certainly like to see them come home alive. If there is a war, however, I hope everybody at home is willing to stand behind his country and do what he can to give our troops every possible advantage and get them home as quickly as possible. I'm willing to grant every person an opinion, but when we get the next Jane Fonda, I'd just as soon see him/her hanged.
Are do you just have no problem with sending our poor and minority people to kill the conscripted soldiers in the Iraqi army?
You know, this argument pisses me off more than any other. Where the HELL do you get off assuming that anybody who supports action against Iraq is some rich white guy with no stake in what goes on there? My brother was activated and has to take 1.5 - 2 years off from Med School to get special forces training for possible action. My brother-in-law is next in line to get activated, putting on hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering and leaving behind my sister and their two children to go to Iraq. We are all middle-class white people. We are all fully behind whatever decision is made. These are people I care about, and I am sick of stupid liberals like you telling me that the only reason I support the President is that I don't care about the people who will be fighting the war. If you've got an opinion, feel free to express it, but quit telling people whom they do and do not care about.
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Use all that technology we developed for MIRV nuclear warheads, each individual warhead has a heat shield for re-entry, guidance and payload. We pack dozens of these things on a single ICBM, so you can imagine how little each weighs
Dozens? Really? Last I checked, the Peacekeeper was our most advanced vehicle, and it carries only 10 Mk21s. Each is a little over 5 ft. tall and they are quite heavy. They do not carry guidance systems. They are called "ballistic missiles" because their flight path is completely ballistic once they are ejected from the platform. They do have some radar that sometimes helps them decide when to detonate (depending on the fuzing option used), but mostly they just fall and blow. Furthermore, the heat shield doesn't help much if it comes in at an uncontrolled angle. Finally, the RV is not designed to structurally survive an impact. A properly functioning warhead will almost never hit the ground (not even for a "hard target" kill). It detonates in the air because the ground would attenuate much of its blast pressure. The test vehicles we throw at pacific islands would not make suitable data storage devices. They are reduced to mouldering heaps of metal once they impact. In short, there is absolutely nothing about an RV design that wouuld make those principles suitable for a "black box" (which is actually bright orange). Crash survivability is an entirely different science with completely different goals.
Are most celebrities to dumb to run a Tivo or use eBay?
Some are even too dumb to know the difference between 'too' and 'to.' Maybe that's harsh, but I firmly believe that if you are going to call somebody "dumb," you should do it with impeccable spelling and grammar.
Somehow, I get the feeling that there won't be guard shacks every few miles to stop unwanted tourists. If you really wanted to do it, you could probably get away with it.
Actually, in my city, the one guy who is actually just sitting in his big tractor eating his lunch. I suspect that the little bit of work that actually does get done is performed by road fairies in the wee hours of the morning.
That's kind of funny. My experience was exactly the opposite. We didn't watch the launch live. In fact, I remember that as we were discussing it later, our teacher mentioned that fewer people saw it live because a shuttle launch just wasn't the big deal it used to be. However, once it happened, our teachers had us all huddled around a few small TVs watching news reports and re-runs of the tape. I think we saw that explosion way too many times that day. Then we talked about it for several days afterwards.
I hear she will now be heading up a company that sells fat-free "diet" lard and dehydrated water capsules (they're easier to carry and store). She has TONS of experience in promoting such substantial ventures, and looks to make tons of money re-directing that energy.
Ha ha! Geeks are elitists who do NOT use the best tool for the job. They use the most esoteric without regard to quality, and will maintain to their graves that the most esoteric way is the best. The only option a geek has to worry about is "vi or emacs," and he made up his mind on that one with rabid devotion when he was 4 (and if he didn't, he'll claim he did).
OT, but your.sig made me think of something that occurred to me recently. It was stupid of Darth Sidious to clone an obviously incompetent adult to make Storm Troopers and them arm them with blasters they were ill-equipped to handle. As the parent of a 2 year old, I posit that a massive army of toddlers armed with Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches, Pancake Syrup and Magic Markers would be a force that would rival Nature herself in pure destructive power. It would have taken this terrible, unholy army approximately ten minutes to dismantle the entire fleet of ships that Storm Troopers were trying to blast apart in AoTC. Most of the ships, operating under crippled, gummed-up guidance systems that have been reprogrammed to point to the nearest black hole, with controls that stick in all the wrong places, and terminals impossible to read for all of the random black markings, would simply crash into each other, with the captains of said ships welcoming the sweet deliverance of death. The rest would get hopelessly lost in the depths of space, and by the time anyone found them, the crews would be incurably mad.
In case you are wondering, yes, having a two year old is occasionally associated with sleep deprivation. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing.
but the real advantage to open source is that anyone can change it and add to it
Although nobody ever actually does. Seriously, I'm not trolling here, but I am a fairly decent C programmer, and I have never once changed a line of code in my Linux kernel. Now, on the other hand, I'm an engineer, so there is something comforting about knowing that I can if I felt inclined to, and maybe someday I will, not because I think it will make it better, but because it is an engineer's sworn duty to tinker with everything until it is broken, but for the most part, I think this is exaggerated as one of the primary benefits of Linux. I'd bet that not even one in ten users has so much as looked at a line of code in the kernel (incidentally, I have at least done that much).
Go to a different school. That's about all you can do. Last time I checked, we still hadn't passed the Constitutional amendment that guarantees free and unfettered broadband internet access to all citizens regardless of race, religion, color, creed or P2P app. So, write your congress person today!
I agree that it is not practical to predict the economy of 2014. In fact, even ignoring catastrophic events, we can't predict the economy next year. That's not what I am getting at here, though. As I said at first, any positive feedback control system is inherently unstable. To refute that, you need to refute my theory that Microsoft operates on a positive feedback model. If you are willing to grant the positive feedback theory, they will eventually fail. How long is eventually? That is where it is pure conjecture. It may not be in the next 10 years (I would conjecture that 10 years is sufficient time for them to reach critical mass if they don't get some negative feedback introduced into the system, but as you said, that's just a guess).
but otherwise this tonnage could realistically be delivered by aircraft by conventional explosives or, in equivalent destructive terms, by firebomb bombardment such as had leveled most of Tokyo and Dresden.
On this vein, if I am remembering my numbers correctly, Nagasakin and Hiroshima accounted for approximately 1/4 the total damage inflicted on Japan in bombing raids -- meaning that the conventional fire bombing inflicted 3 times as much damage as the two nukes. Although there is something to be said for inflicting that much damage in one shot, it is clearly possible to inflict as much with conventional weapons. Somebody else pointed out in this thread how small nukes actually are compared to perception. They're devestating weapons, to be sure, but they do not vaporize whole cities in a single blow.
IIRC, the world economy was going to collapse some time around 2000 because all the resources would have been consumed.
I didn't say when Microsoft would collapse, only that it is inevitable. I think the global economy is more stable than that. The only way it would collapse is if there were absolutely no physical resources left to put behind the money we make up. I haven't seen any credible sources predicting that happening in the immediate future. Within that system, however, there are finite resources ("money" in this case). Microsoft is a single body within that system that is absorbing vast amounts of those resources and accumulating mass in a positive feedback loop (it's like a monster that only gets hungrier when it eats and is large enough to eat whatever it wants). That simply cannot be sustained forever. I don't know when it will break, but I will stand fast by the assertion that it will eventually break.
Slashdot Mirror
Wannabe Engineer: Application "Engineers" and Network "Engineers." Requirement: You're the guy down the street that "knows stuff about computers." A degree in IS, a diploma from ITT Tech and Certifications are all optional.
I'm not an Engineer, But I Play One At Work: Software "Engineers." Requirement: A CS degree. You think you're cool because you hack XML. You think you know stuff about computers, but you couldn't so much as recognize a K-Map if it slapped you in the face. You've heard of "assembly" programming, but you've never actually seen it.
Real Engineer (junior grade): Electrical/Computer Engineers. Requirement: A B.S. in Electrical Engineering. You actually know something. You eat Verilog for breakfast and assembly for lunch. You could probably design a power supply for your computer from scratch, but it wouldn't have good voltage regulation.
Real Engineer: Requirement: PE. You think you are a demigod, and all the Engineer(j.g.)'s simultaneously despise you and want to be you. You dream in SPICE and FORTRAN and scorn those who rely on silly schematic capture tools, since you write all of your netlists in vi.
I guess I ought to clarify one thing. I fully supported the first gulf war. I really think it's okay for us to go play "good neighbor" when people are invading each other, and we had very strong international support. When I say it was botched, I strongly believe we should have started what we finished (I believe you expressed a similar position earlier). Maybe we would have caught some ill will from our Arab allies, but I think they would have gotten over it. As for suicide bombers, those guys found a reason to hate us even without killing Saddam, and they would have hated us even if Gulf I had never happened. We like Israel, and that's enough for them. Anyway, if we had just taken Saddam out to begin with, we wouldn't even have this problem right now, and I think that's what we should have done.
As for Osama, let me know when you find out.
The Peacekeeper is capable of carrying 10 warheads and 1 telemetry vehicle. With that payload, the Re-entry System is full. The RS constitutes the entire nose cone area of the launch vehicle. To add more warheads, you would have to design a completely new delivery vehicle. Current treaty obligations do not mandate 10 RVs. They eliminate MIRVs altogether. No existing ICBM is capable of carrying "dozens" of RVs.
As for North Korea, I've got to give you that point. I personally believe they're a more imminent danger than Iraq, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them next on our list.
I think the problem with this is that it's not too hard to hide stuff if he does have it. The U.N. is asking him to account for weapon materials they already believe that he has, and he has failed to do so. I really don't put much stock in the weapons inspection until Hussein shows some genuine, pro-active cooperation. I don't think you give Bush enough credit on this. The fact that he offered it put him in a position that would have made it difficult for him to turn Saddam down if he consented. I don't think he really expected Saddam to accept, but I would certainly have liked to see it happen. Indeed, no warfare is the optimal solution. Like I said, I'd love to see Saddam surrender and for this whole thing to come to a bloodless end. If that can't happen, then I'd much rather we use our technological advantage to make sure that as little blood is spilled on both sides as possible. There are people very close to me who are first in line to get deployed there, and I'd certainly like to see them come home alive. If there is a war, however, I hope everybody at home is willing to stand behind his country and do what he can to give our troops every possible advantage and get them home as quickly as possible. I'm willing to grant every person an opinion, but when we get the next Jane Fonda, I'd just as soon see him/her hanged.But enough about the Mitnick cheerleaders on Slashdot. I'd like to know what outsiders think of Kevin Mitnick (those who have even heard of him).
Somehow, I get the feeling that there won't be guard shacks every few miles to stop unwanted tourists. If you really wanted to do it, you could probably get away with it.
Actually, in my city, the one guy who is actually just sitting in his big tractor eating his lunch. I suspect that the little bit of work that actually does get done is performed by road fairies in the wee hours of the morning.
That's kind of funny. My experience was exactly the opposite. We didn't watch the launch live. In fact, I remember that as we were discussing it later, our teacher mentioned that fewer people saw it live because a shuttle launch just wasn't the big deal it used to be. However, once it happened, our teachers had us all huddled around a few small TVs watching news reports and re-runs of the tape. I think we saw that explosion way too many times that day. Then we talked about it for several days afterwards.
I hear she will now be heading up a company that sells fat-free "diet" lard and dehydrated water capsules (they're easier to carry and store). She has TONS of experience in promoting such substantial ventures, and looks to make tons of money re-directing that energy.
Ha ha! Geeks are elitists who do NOT use the best tool for the job. They use the most esoteric without regard to quality, and will maintain to their graves that the most esoteric way is the best. The only option a geek has to worry about is "vi or emacs," and he made up his mind on that one with rabid devotion when he was 4 (and if he didn't, he'll claim he did).
In case you are wondering, yes, having a two year old is occasionally associated with sleep deprivation. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing.
Go to a different school. That's about all you can do. Last time I checked, we still hadn't passed the Constitutional amendment that guarantees free and unfettered broadband internet access to all citizens regardless of race, religion, color, creed or P2P app. So, write your congress person today!
I agree that it is not practical to predict the economy of 2014. In fact, even ignoring catastrophic events, we can't predict the economy next year. That's not what I am getting at here, though. As I said at first, any positive feedback control system is inherently unstable. To refute that, you need to refute my theory that Microsoft operates on a positive feedback model. If you are willing to grant the positive feedback theory, they will eventually fail. How long is eventually? That is where it is pure conjecture. It may not be in the next 10 years (I would conjecture that 10 years is sufficient time for them to reach critical mass if they don't get some negative feedback introduced into the system, but as you said, that's just a guess).