1. Disable electronics of missile through EMP/ionizing radiation. 2. Head one side of the missile with a laser so it forms a plasma. 3. Wait 4. See a hunk of metal fly pasts your ship.
Gama ray lasers powered by nuclear bombs? I think it is somewhat possible with current technology, if you can live with fact that you also destroy the lensing apparatus and surrounding environment...
I am not so sure, small scale battles may be feasible. But yes, they probably will be over quite quick and deadly. First, no maned space fighters. Drones can outperform a human pilot easily. You may see larger done carrier ships that are maned, but if they know what is good for them they will try to hang back as far as possible. The ships may have point defenses, but probably no real offensive capabilities. A few high powered lasers to blast asteroids or debris out of the way; not destroy, just heat one side to form a plasma and push it out of the ship's path. That is a better idea than to waste fuel to maneuver around obstacles.
As for weapons, there are multiple options. Interestingly for low yield weapons kinetic projectiles are the way to go. Either you use as the video discussed "cannonballs" but also missiles without explosive charges may do the trick. On the high yield side you can use nukes. Here the radiation is the primary factor, not the blast. The radiation will melt most materials at close range and irradiate anything at far range. Lasers may work at close range, but you will need to find a power source to bring up the energy and keep it cool. You could use gamma ray lasers if you are attacking human targets.
But you are right, when you are going for the kill and are ready to wipe out an entire planet. all you need to do is strap some rockets to a larger asteroid, put it on a collision course and wait.
Then again you may want to keep the few resources you want to control intact. Here way more nefarious techniques make be employed. Assassinate all leaders that oppose joining the empire. Deploy nano bots, like bacteria that kill all high ranking officers of the enemy's armed forces at a certain day in the future.
Unless human nature changes radically, we will see conflict; but it won't be Star Wars.
This is the best idea I heard in a while; I have never thought of it that way. The sounds the pilot hears are aural queues from the radar / tactical computer. Genius!
I don't know about his name, by my name is Sean. You can have Shown, Shaun and possibly misshearings such as John. But then again I don't care, if it is for coffee.
True that the prevailing west winds will reduce the chance of the fallout getting to France. But the Chernobyl disaster showed a rather different pattern; you can not count on it to work out.
So you say that everybody can pick up a skill equally? Look around you, talent is not equally distributed. Some people are good at math, some people good at writing, some are good at music. Some just pick up a skill intuitively and others struggle with it. The article hints that it is strongly based on genetics and why should it not be? You can see this very well with primary school children. Some pick up math easily and some don't, for example.
But the point you are making is not fully off either. The different talents are distributed more or less evenly in the populace. But to convert that talent into a skill you need practice and tutoring. Your social class will be a strong indicator if you will get the tutoring, mentoring and practice required to convert it into a skill. If you can barely make rent, you will not pay your children around 100 bucks for violin lessons.
In addition you social class will also determine the amount of tutoring you get despite of your lack talent. Not good in math, extra lessons, because we can. As a result your parent's income is the strongest indicator, if you will graduate for the university or not. Partially because you get all the additional training required to even out your difficulties, partially because it is expected of you.
Claiming that genetics has nothing to do with it is nonsense. But there is much untapped talent, simply because of social economic circumstances. It remains that you need a lot of practice to make your talent into a skill.
Actually the article is trying to discredit the notion that "you can take anybody, let them practice 10k h and you get an expert." What they are basically stating is what everybody knows intuitively, some people pick up a skill easier than others (up 22x) and they affirm that is is genetic in nature. (if one twin can draw well, so can it's sibling.) What remains is, no mater what talent you have you still need to invest much time (e.g. 10k h) until you will master the craft.
Oddly, I think few people believed the original formulation, that you could take anybody and make a master. Nevertheless the 10k hour rule is in essence correct, even if the actual number may differ. You need to practice much to master a craft. The thing that distorts the picture is that only people with a minimum level of talent and passion will actually be willing to invest the time. You can not really compare someone with 10k practice with someone with 2k practice, since both probably have above average talent.
The only reason why the "Europe" where successful, if you can say that, is that many nations are part of NATO. NATO has the USA, UK and France who all have nuclear weapons. What "non-nuclear" deterrent do they have again?
Or do you mean the economic bonds that tie France and Germany together? Even if, Germany and France would never have a Nuclear shootout. Sure Germany would "loose", since they have no nuclear weapons, but all the fallout will neatly come blowing over the border and cleanly deposit itself on northern France..
I don't know... On a global scale you could probably absorb relative much radiation before it becomes hazardous to humans. Sure the actual areas where the nukes detonated is different story.
Cultural change is the keyword here. Legally women have the same chances (in the west), yet they still have different society pressures. Who gets called when the child is sick? Who is expected to tend to the children?
But that does not only apply to women. The same pressure, although the other way around, is put onto men. I am in a happy marriage and although our burden (childcare/job) is unevenly split because of financial reasons, I try to take on as much child care as I can. For example we split the sick days evenly and I regularly bring my daughter to school or to violin lessons. This means that I need to organize my work days around these activities (as does she). And for that I am occasionally called a wimp, I should man up and tell her where her place is. This is insane. I like how the current situations works out... (I only work 4 days a week.)
I am absolutely for equal rights and opportunities. People should chose what they want to do and not be forced into a stereotype. And yet there are some modern feminist that piss me off. The blow everything out of proportion and are not open to reasonable debate. In some cases there are even accounts of false flag operations to make them look like the victim of harassment.
The current meme of 4chan are bunch of evil mysandric trolls is appalling. Especially since, although not tame and not political correct, most people there where somewhat reasoned. Sure they had fun trolling habbo hotel and had a really odd sense of humor ("The pool is closed because of aids"). But they also spearheaded the movement against Scientology and other rather noble causes. Suddenly (after some allegations) people turned up to rally against certain feminists individuals and the tone changed. The timing of the events seem odd; an other false flag operation? This would tie in with the current tun of events...
What people are up in arms is not that the ISPs are shaping traffic*. But that they are using that as an extortion to get the content provides to pay for preferential treatment. That is, pay for bandwidth that was already payed for by the subscriber. Or using it to quench competition to a service they provide. The problem is that there is no world where traffic shaping can exist and rent seeking through these means not.
* For example prioritizing VoIP is something that almost nobody would object to and that is something that is done in ATM networks since they where conceived.
Only a technicality, but you don't have any right whatsoever. There is a broad consensus that you should have basic human rights, but there no natural right to them.
What are you talking about?! Around 2000 I would have agreed with you that getting cross with Russia would mean very cold winters. But since then the EU; especially Germany have basically removed any significant reliance on Russian natural gas. Russia could vanish off the face of the earth and the EU trade balance would not be effected significantly.
This always depends on how much it radioactive material is released in total. One or two nukes will not make much; even one nuke per US major city (1-5k) will probably not make Africa or Australia inhabitable.
On the other hand GP's point of a nuke being a revenge weapon is basically stop on. It is the type of weapon you would use as a last act of desperation.
I am not sure if the Monroe Doctrine is still applicable, but the rest is spot on. On the other hand, the US will not take kindly any involvement of Russia in America (the continent), purely because of proximity. Well you know how the Cube crisis worked out...
Anybody that though a nuclear free world would happen is just ignoring the reality of the situation. The only reason why nuclear weapons are not used (by Nations) is because they simply can not win a nuclear war if the opponent is also armed with nukes. A properly functioning nuclear deterrent is required to maintain the status quo.
The only reasonable thing we can do is reduce the stockpile so we can eradicate humanity only once, instead of ten times and ensure that the weapons are safe (when idle). They may be necessary to prevent nuclear extortion, but we don't have to sink more money into it then necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Disable electronics of missile through EMP/ionizing radiation.
2. Head one side of the missile with a laser so it forms a plasma.
3. Wait
4. See a hunk of metal fly pasts your ship.
Gama ray lasers powered by nuclear bombs? I think it is somewhat possible with current technology, if you can live with fact that you also destroy the lensing apparatus and surrounding environment...
I am not so sure, small scale battles may be feasible. But yes, they probably will be over quite quick and deadly. First, no maned space fighters. Drones can outperform a human pilot easily. You may see larger done carrier ships that are maned, but if they know what is good for them they will try to hang back as far as possible. The ships may have point defenses, but probably no real offensive capabilities. A few high powered lasers to blast asteroids or debris out of the way; not destroy, just heat one side to form a plasma and push it out of the ship's path. That is a better idea than to waste fuel to maneuver around obstacles.
As for weapons, there are multiple options. Interestingly for low yield weapons kinetic projectiles are the way to go. Either you use as the video discussed "cannonballs" but also missiles without explosive charges may do the trick. On the high yield side you can use nukes. Here the radiation is the primary factor, not the blast. The radiation will melt most materials at close range and irradiate anything at far range. Lasers may work at close range, but you will need to find a power source to bring up the energy and keep it cool. You could use gamma ray lasers if you are attacking human targets.
But you are right, when you are going for the kill and are ready to wipe out an entire planet. all you need to do is strap some rockets to a larger asteroid, put it on a collision course and wait.
Then again you may want to keep the few resources you want to control intact. Here way more nefarious techniques make be employed. Assassinate all leaders that oppose joining the empire. Deploy nano bots, like bacteria that kill all high ranking officers of the enemy's armed forces at a certain day in the future.
Unless human nature changes radically, we will see conflict; but it won't be Star Wars.
This is the best idea I heard in a while; I have never thought of it that way. The sounds the pilot hears are aural queues from the radar / tactical computer. Genius!
I don't know about his name, by my name is Sean. You can have Shown, Shaun and possibly misshearings such as John. But then again I don't care, if it is for coffee.
True that the prevailing west winds will reduce the chance of the fallout getting to France. But the Chernobyl disaster showed a rather different pattern; you can not count on it to work out.
But that is outbound, not inbound. Bash is not listening for connections, that is the key point.
Isn't one of the reasons why you would use git-shell for the git user? If you are running bash for the git user you failed as an admin.
So you say that everybody can pick up a skill equally? Look around you, talent is not equally distributed. Some people are good at math, some people good at writing, some are good at music. Some just pick up a skill intuitively and others struggle with it. The article hints that it is strongly based on genetics and why should it not be? You can see this very well with primary school children. Some pick up math easily and some don't, for example.
But the point you are making is not fully off either. The different talents are distributed more or less evenly in the populace. But to convert that talent into a skill you need practice and tutoring. Your social class will be a strong indicator if you will get the tutoring, mentoring and practice required to convert it into a skill. If you can barely make rent, you will not pay your children around 100 bucks for violin lessons.
In addition you social class will also determine the amount of tutoring you get despite of your lack talent. Not good in math, extra lessons, because we can. As a result your parent's income is the strongest indicator, if you will graduate for the university or not. Partially because you get all the additional training required to even out your difficulties, partially because it is expected of you.
Claiming that genetics has nothing to do with it is nonsense. But there is much untapped talent, simply because of social economic circumstances. It remains that you need a lot of practice to make your talent into a skill.
Actually the article is trying to discredit the notion that "you can take anybody, let them practice 10k h and you get an expert." What they are basically stating is what everybody knows intuitively, some people pick up a skill easier than others (up 22x) and they affirm that is is genetic in nature. (if one twin can draw well, so can it's sibling.) What remains is, no mater what talent you have you still need to invest much time (e.g. 10k h) until you will master the craft.
Oddly, I think few people believed the original formulation, that you could take anybody and make a master. Nevertheless the 10k hour rule is in essence correct, even if the actual number may differ. You need to practice much to master a craft. The thing that distorts the picture is that only people with a minimum level of talent and passion will actually be willing to invest the time. You can not really compare someone with 10k practice with someone with 2k practice, since both probably have above average talent.
The only reason why the "Europe" where successful, if you can say that, is that many nations are part of NATO. NATO has the USA, UK and France who all have nuclear weapons. What "non-nuclear" deterrent do they have again?
Or do you mean the economic bonds that tie France and Germany together? Even if, Germany and France would never have a Nuclear shootout. Sure Germany would "loose", since they have no nuclear weapons, but all the fallout will neatly come blowing over the border and cleanly deposit itself on northern France..
Because money?
I don't know... On a global scale you could probably absorb relative much radiation before it becomes hazardous to humans. Sure the actual areas where the nukes detonated is different story.
Cultural change is the keyword here. Legally women have the same chances (in the west), yet they still have different society pressures. Who gets called when the child is sick? Who is expected to tend to the children?
But that does not only apply to women. The same pressure, although the other way around, is put onto men. I am in a happy marriage and although our burden (childcare/job) is unevenly split because of financial reasons, I try to take on as much child care as I can. For example we split the sick days evenly and I regularly bring my daughter to school or to violin lessons. This means that I need to organize my work days around these activities (as does she). And for that I am occasionally called a wimp, I should man up and tell her where her place is. This is insane. I like how the current situations works out... (I only work 4 days a week.)
I am absolutely for equal rights and opportunities. People should chose what they want to do and not be forced into a stereotype. And yet there are some modern feminist that piss me off. The blow everything out of proportion and are not open to reasonable debate. In some cases there are even accounts of false flag operations to make them look like the victim of harassment.
The current meme of 4chan are bunch of evil mysandric trolls is appalling. Especially since, although not tame and not political correct, most people there where somewhat reasoned. Sure they had fun trolling habbo hotel and had a really odd sense of humor ("The pool is closed because of aids"). But they also spearheaded the movement against Scientology and other rather noble causes. Suddenly (after some allegations) people turned up to rally against certain feminists individuals and the tone changed. The timing of the events seem odd; an other false flag operation? This would tie in with the current tun of events...
(Oh... that comment took an odd turn...)
I have not used Gnome for a LONG while, but did CTRL+F2 die?
What people are up in arms is not that the ISPs are shaping traffic*. But that they are using that as an extortion to get the content provides to pay for preferential treatment. That is, pay for bandwidth that was already payed for by the subscriber. Or using it to quench competition to a service they provide. The problem is that there is no world where traffic shaping can exist and rent seeking through these means not.
* For example prioritizing VoIP is something that almost nobody would object to and that is something that is done in ATM networks since they where conceived.
Only a technicality, but you don't have any right whatsoever. There is a broad consensus that you should have basic human rights, but there no natural right to them.
+1 funny
They just can't prove it because they're too busy nuking the only camera they own.
I have seen a few pictures of idiots doing this on sites such as 9gag. But then again 9gag and friends are not a reliable source, so...
That is the points; if it's not mentioned in the manual, it is not the case. But then again, who reads manuals these days.
What are you talking about?! Around 2000 I would have agreed with you that getting cross with Russia would mean very cold winters. But since then the EU; especially Germany have basically removed any significant reliance on Russian natural gas. Russia could vanish off the face of the earth and the EU trade balance would not be effected significantly.
This always depends on how much it radioactive material is released in total. One or two nukes will not make much; even one nuke per US major city (1-5k) will probably not make Africa or Australia inhabitable.
On the other hand GP's point of a nuke being a revenge weapon is basically stop on. It is the type of weapon you would use as a last act of desperation.
I am not sure if the Monroe Doctrine is still applicable, but the rest is spot on. On the other hand, the US will not take kindly any involvement of Russia in America (the continent), purely because of proximity. Well you know how the Cube crisis worked out...
Anybody that though a nuclear free world would happen is just ignoring the reality of the situation. The only reason why nuclear weapons are not used (by Nations) is because they simply can not win a nuclear war if the opponent is also armed with nukes. A properly functioning nuclear deterrent is required to maintain the status quo.
The only reasonable thing we can do is reduce the stockpile so we can eradicate humanity only once, instead of ten times and ensure that the weapons are safe (when idle). They may be necessary to prevent nuclear extortion, but we don't have to sink more money into it then necessary.
Much simpler. Have an encrypted file and distribute it far and wide. Simply put the key in the will.