Oh puhlease! If you hate us so much, why shouldn't we oppress you? Besides, if there's no god, there's nothing wrong it. It's just survival of the fittest, and you aren't fit.
Screw the stupid Euro-fancy cars. Saab is a second rate BMW wanna be. If you want a geeky car, there's only one ultimate car, and that is an early 1970s American car, prior to all the stupid regulations.
a) used leaded fuel for knock reduction and maximum power. Yeah its bad for the environment, but it did make for great engines.
b) used great, thick steel, nice and strong
c) gobs and gobs of horsepower, and plenty of torque. There is no replacement for displacement!
If so, why isn't anyone at GE Superabrasives defecting and setting up a new corp to exploit this market anomaly, mass-produce all kinds of shiny super-tough stuff and gut the business of two market leaders in the process?
I would think they can't actually make giant gem quality diamonds, or they would. GE would not be intimidated by DeBeers. They would make the diamonds, then the Chinese would steal the process, and we would have 2 carat diamonds for twenty bucks at Walmart.
I think MP3 is ok for casual use, but if music companies really wanted something to perk up people's attention, have a site where you can download stuff losslessly compressed. Why on earth would I spend thousands of dollars on digital communications in order to have a media format that chops all the data out of a song has an element of craziness to it. If you want to sell music, sell the music.
If a planet-killer asteroid was entering the atmosphere at this very moment, they'd be scheduling a meeting for later in the week to discuss how to put a banner ad on it.
Can you imagine the impact of that advertisement though. DODGE TRUCK, BUILT ASTEROID TOUGH
If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US? Why is SF.net specifically reinforcing their position in the US by adhering to its exclusion of US enemies? Doesn't this make US enemies SF.net enemies?
Well, the USA isn't perfect, but our European allies either tax too much, have even worse government regulations about content, and then, beyond that, you have semi-dictatorships, and then, no nation states at all.
The waterfall model is horrible for big projects. I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.
The spiral model is utterly terrible. Since the DoD moved over to it, every one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.
Agile isn't all that much better. The whole point of Agile is that you can have all of these changes... but you can get that with shorter release cycles, and its pretty easy to game Agile as much as any other model.
The only reason there is a digital divide is because of copyright law. Programmers have the benefit of creating something that can be sold over and over again, whether it is embedded in a service such as a bank, insurance company, or financial house, or, off the shelf. This benefit is generally created by copyright law and patents. If you didn't have those things, then, you, programmers wouldn't be able to cash in selling stuff over and over again because everyone could just copy it once made. Then, programmers would be at the same level of utility as, say, a sheet metal worker, and we'd all make the same too.
Isn't the tabs. Its that, despite a howl of protest on the main Microsoft board, they claim to be unable to add an input box and label to a form with a release date still undetermined. How long and how disruptive could this task possibly be when the macro solution someone came up with shows the integration of settings is at the u/i level?
Honestly, I think the guy from visual studio lied.
and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights
I get it too that there are many liberals for copyright and conservatives against. I was just making a joke about the role of France in the USA.
I'm actually increasingly against copyrights and patents because I think they create a social inequality between different kinds of workers. A man that builds a house, can only charge once for that house. A man that writes a computer program, or a song, can charge over and over again. This to me is unfair, because honestly, I think building a house is some pretty damned hard work. But, all tributes to the working man aside, the deal is that copyright and patents are an economic distortion created by the government.
This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century. I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.
So it looks like the French are our new political football in America. Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.
Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!
We should tax things that are bad or at least neutral, but our current system taxes good things like salaries, investments, and profits.
Energy is actually a better communicator of wealth and money than, well, money is. No tax is actually -good-, but energy is the least of all evils. Taxing pollution is entirely subjective, because everyone can have their own definition of what is pollution and what is not, but, a kilowatt is a kilowatt.
while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected
At least the Superhornet is ok in the speed department. I like the F-22 for the speedy airframe and advanced avionics, and gasp, I dare say that one might wonder whether for some missions we might just as well keep the plane but trade off some of its stealthy features just so it would be operational more often.
I think we should get rid of the income and sales taxes altogether and just have a flat energy tax. A flat energy tax would attract conservatives because it is a tax on consumption, rather than investment, and liberals because it is both environmentally friendly and progressive, to policy planners because it would smooth out the bust and boom revenue cycle that comes from our top heavy tax code today, and everyone because it would actually be a lot easier to administrate.
The F-22 is, unequivocally, the most superior aircraft extant in its role. What pricetag do you put on 'the best'? What logistical costs are acceptable?
When it flies. The readiness on this plane is terrible. It's a first strike only aircraft and cannot be scrambled on an alert.
Is that ultimately, disabling an in-house government operation actually winds up raising overall costs in the long run. Initially, yeah, the venture capitalists that fund the privatization give the feds a pretty good deal, but contrary to all the babble about short sightedness, these folks are in it for the long haul. They bide their time, and let the inevitable churn of politics and government action mean a greater demand for services, which they provide.
Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense, and what do we have, but only 1700 fighter aircraft for the USAF, not even 300 ships for the USN, and the whole time the contractors wave around "complexity" as if it is a magic bullet to allow brute force engineering that costs a fortune, cost overruns and bad designs papered over in "blocks".
I point at the F-22, as exhibit A, the littoral combat ship, the next generation aircraft carrier. All of this stuff is, well, pretty feature rich, but, the F-22 needs a thousand people a pop to get it off the ground, which is insane, the LCS is now too expensive to be the disposable combat vessel it was supposed to be, and the next generation aircraft carrier is insane.
When you are down to just -one- possible vendor for the government, at that point, you almost have to just nationalize the business.
But given the abuse of the fillibuster in Congress, it takes a disaster (natural or man-made) to get the Government to do anything.
Oh come. It's only an abuse of the filibuster process when your political party is the one in power. When the Dems were in the minority, they totally abused the filibuster process to block everything they could, and Republican noises about getting rid of the filibuster were met with hails of protest.
Also, remember, the LAST President could not even USE a computer never mind social media, and "the Decider"
All I have to say is, if the "Decider" were a Democrat and President right now, you'd have single payer national health care. "The Decider" got the congress to pretty much him give him what he wanted, because he knew how to hold the keys of his own party and actually, despite his misgivings, could always rally his base.
Obama can't do any of that, and his first year in office has been a total failure. SO far, regardless of whether you like his policies or not, George W Bush JR was a way more -effective- president than Obama is.
I mean, come on, the Democrats lose a single Senate race to what conservatives will ultimately label a RINO, and they fold up the tent on their whole agenda. For f--- sake, grow some balls. Bush lost the whole congress in the biggest disaster in Republican history, on the issue of a war, and what did he do? He put in 20,000 MORE troops!
That's some balls of steel. By contrast, Democrats are pussies.
How does the number of fans Barack Obama has confirm that social media has come of age?
It has become politically important enough for Barry Obama to have a Facebook page, and market that page to get 7 million fans. The fact that it caused an adjustment to a business process of politics, means it has penetrated society enough to take it seriously from a budgeting perspective. To start with that, the authors would have you buy their book.
Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks
The issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses, then it will be, "private space company is too big to fail", and they get handouts. In fact, I don't even know if I want the rocket noise. We don't really have free enterprise now. Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest, and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.
If somebody wants to build a spaceship, go ahead, with your money, but if you try to it over my house, I'm shooting it down!
Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really, has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry, let alone a government with highly technical needs? I don't think it has.
Take the US Navy for example. Before the private contractor lobby, the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards. Now, they have a byzantine procurement system, cost overruns out the wazoo, I mean, even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke, and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now, or 20 billion. It's a joke, a bunch of finger pointing by vendors, and frankly, enough already. Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works. I'd say, let's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships, without all the red tape.
Slashdot Mirror
he State and Capital ....No Gods!
No Masters
Oh puhlease! If you hate us so much, why shouldn't we oppress you? Besides, if there's no god, there's nothing wrong it. It's just survival of the fittest, and you aren't fit.
Screw the stupid Euro-fancy cars. Saab is a second rate BMW wanna be. If you want a geeky car, there's only one ultimate car, and that is an early 1970s American car, prior to all the stupid regulations.
a) used leaded fuel for knock reduction and maximum power. Yeah its bad for the environment, but it did make for great engines.
b) used great, thick steel, nice and strong
c) gobs and gobs of horsepower, and plenty of torque. There is no replacement for displacement!
My 73 Olds Delta 88 would crush your little Saab!
I think the next time we do robots on mars we should send them in pairs or teams so they can push each other out.
Nope, I'm wrong. Those aren't diamonds. Just fancy names for good ole CZ
http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/?gclid=CIPXuJHGwp8CFdRM5QodL2yK3g
http://www.stauer.com/search.asp?catID=15&ad=STRSEMWBIWGOGJLY
If so, why isn't anyone at GE Superabrasives defecting and setting up a new corp to exploit this market anomaly, mass-produce all kinds of shiny super-tough stuff and gut the business of two market leaders in the process?
I would think they can't actually make giant gem quality diamonds, or they would. GE would not be intimidated by DeBeers. They would make the diamonds, then the Chinese would steal the process, and we would have 2 carat diamonds for twenty bucks at Walmart.
I think MP3 is ok for casual use, but if music companies really wanted something to perk up people's attention, have a site where you can download stuff losslessly compressed. Why on earth would I spend thousands of dollars on digital communications in order to have a media format that chops all the data out of a song has an element of craziness to it. If you want to sell music, sell the music.
If a planet-killer asteroid was entering the atmosphere at this very moment, they'd be scheduling a meeting for later in the week to discuss how to put a banner ad on it.
Can you imagine the impact of that advertisement though. DODGE TRUCK, BUILT ASTEROID TOUGH
If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US? Why is SF.net specifically reinforcing their position in the US by adhering to its exclusion of US enemies? Doesn't this make US enemies SF.net enemies?
Well, the USA isn't perfect, but our European allies either tax too much, have even worse government regulations about content, and then, beyond that, you have semi-dictatorships, and then, no nation states at all.
Structured text formats with standard parsers and writer like XML are arguably smarter than than a dumb .c file.
It's all just something you would shove into a Boost Spirit grammar. The guy just nailed it.
The waterfall model is horrible for big projects. I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.
The spiral model is utterly terrible. Since the DoD moved over to it, every one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.
Agile isn't all that much better. The whole point of Agile is that you can have all of these changes... but you can get that with shorter release cycles, and its pretty easy to game Agile as much as any other model.
I think waterfall is probably still the best.
The only reason there is a digital divide is because of copyright law. Programmers have the benefit of creating something that can be sold over and over again, whether it is embedded in a service such as a bank, insurance company, or financial house, or, off the shelf. This benefit is generally created by copyright law and patents. If you didn't have those things, then, you, programmers wouldn't be able to cash in selling stuff over and over again because everyone could just copy it once made. Then, programmers would be at the same level of utility as, say, a sheet metal worker, and we'd all make the same too.
This is 2010, why are we sill saving code in dumb text files like in 1960?
Because binary formats are unpopular, and any other format is well, just a text file.
Isn't the tabs. Its that, despite a howl of protest on the main Microsoft board, they claim to be unable to add an input box and label to a form with a release date still undetermined. How long and how disruptive could this task possibly be when the macro solution someone came up with shows the integration of settings is at the u/i level?
Honestly, I think the guy from visual studio lied.
and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights
I get it too that there are many liberals for copyright and conservatives against. I was just making a joke about the role of France in the USA.
I'm actually increasingly against copyrights and patents because I think they create a social inequality between different kinds of workers. A man that builds a house, can only charge once for that house. A man that writes a computer program, or a song, can charge over and over again. This to me is unfair, because honestly, I think building a house is some pretty damned hard work. But, all tributes to the working man aside, the deal is that copyright and patents are an economic distortion created by the government.
This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century. I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.
So it looks like the French are our new political football in America. Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.
Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!
We should tax things that are bad or at least neutral, but our current system taxes good things like salaries, investments, and profits.
Energy is actually a better communicator of wealth and money than, well, money is. No tax is actually -good-, but energy is the least of all evils. Taxing pollution is entirely subjective, because everyone can have their own definition of what is pollution and what is not, but, a kilowatt is a kilowatt.
while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected
At least the Superhornet is ok in the speed department. I like the F-22 for the speedy airframe and advanced avionics, and gasp, I dare say that one might wonder whether for some missions we might just as well keep the plane but trade off some of its stealthy features just so it would be operational more often.
I think we should get rid of the income and sales taxes altogether and just have a flat energy tax. A flat energy tax would attract conservatives because it is a tax on consumption, rather than investment, and liberals because it is both environmentally friendly and progressive, to policy planners because it would smooth out the bust and boom revenue cycle that comes from our top heavy tax code today, and everyone because it would actually be a lot easier to administrate.
The F-22 is, unequivocally, the most superior aircraft extant in its role. What pricetag do you put on 'the best'? What logistical costs are acceptable?
When it flies. The readiness on this plane is terrible. It's a first strike only aircraft and cannot be scrambled on an alert.
Is that ultimately, disabling an in-house government operation actually winds up raising overall costs in the long run. Initially, yeah, the venture capitalists that fund the privatization give the feds a pretty good deal, but contrary to all the babble about short sightedness, these folks are in it for the long haul. They bide their time, and let the inevitable churn of politics and government action mean a greater demand for services, which they provide.
Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense, and what do we have, but only 1700 fighter aircraft for the USAF, not even 300 ships for the USN, and the whole time the contractors wave around "complexity" as if it is a magic bullet to allow brute force engineering that costs a fortune, cost overruns and bad designs papered over in "blocks".
I point at the F-22, as exhibit A, the littoral combat ship, the next generation aircraft carrier. All of this stuff is, well, pretty feature rich, but, the F-22 needs a thousand people a pop to get it off the ground, which is insane, the LCS is now too expensive to be the disposable combat vessel it was supposed to be, and the next generation aircraft carrier is insane.
When you are down to just -one- possible vendor for the government, at that point, you almost have to just nationalize the business.
But given the abuse of the fillibuster in Congress, it takes a disaster (natural or man-made) to get the Government to do anything.
Oh come. It's only an abuse of the filibuster process when your political party is the one in power. When the Dems were in the minority, they totally abused the filibuster process to block everything they could, and Republican noises about getting rid of the filibuster were met with hails of protest.
Also, remember, the LAST President could not even USE a computer never mind social media, and "the Decider"
All I have to say is, if the "Decider" were a Democrat and President right now, you'd have single payer national health care. "The Decider" got the congress to pretty much him give him what he wanted, because he knew how to hold the keys of his own party and actually, despite his misgivings, could always rally his base.
Obama can't do any of that, and his first year in office has been a total failure. SO far, regardless of whether you like his policies or not, George W Bush JR was a way more -effective- president than Obama is.
I mean, come on, the Democrats lose a single Senate race to what conservatives will ultimately label a RINO, and they fold up the tent on their whole agenda. For f--- sake, grow some balls. Bush lost the whole congress in the biggest disaster in Republican history, on the issue of a war, and what did he do? He put in 20,000 MORE troops!
That's some balls of steel. By contrast, Democrats are pussies.
How does the number of fans Barack Obama has confirm that social media has come of age?
It has become politically important enough for Barry Obama to have a Facebook page, and market that page to get 7 million fans. The fact that it caused an adjustment to a business process of politics, means it has penetrated society enough to take it seriously from a budgeting perspective. To start with that, the authors would have you buy their book.
Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks
The issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses, then it will be, "private space company is too big to fail", and they get handouts. In fact, I don't even know if I want the rocket noise. We don't really have free enterprise now. Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest, and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.
If somebody wants to build a spaceship, go ahead, with your money, but if you try to it over my house, I'm shooting it down!
Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really, has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry, let alone a government with highly technical needs? I don't think it has.
Take the US Navy for example. Before the private contractor lobby, the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards. Now, they have a byzantine procurement system, cost overruns out the wazoo, I mean, even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke, and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now, or 20 billion. It's a joke, a bunch of finger pointing by vendors, and frankly, enough already. Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works. I'd say, let's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships, without all the red tape.