Libyan, not Iranian. The constable was shot by someone in the Lybian Embassy during a protest outside of the embassy gates. The Iranian Embassy incident involved hostages and the SAS going in to get them out.
Those are low speeds for some of the more recently-built craft. An acquaintance bought a plane recently for about $100K which, while limited on features, cruises at about 150 knots and maxes out a little under 180 knots. It's a fun plane to fly, though I can't land it myself since I don't have tail-wheel training. It's also limited on cargo and has only two seats, but since it's just him and his wife, jumping out to Las Vegas or Sacramento (where his parents live) isn't tough to do and doesn't take long.
The Flight Design C4, currently still in development, is targeting 1320 pounds useful load for a four-seater with a capability of 830 pounds of payload with full fuel. Max range is expected to be 1200NM for the avgas version and 1700NM for the diesel version at 65% and 75% power, respectively. The expected price is sharp at $300,000, but if they can pull it off, a lot of clubs are going to be buying it up as it vastly outperforms a C172 for the same price.
The unit mix-up was for the Mars Climate Orbiter, not a lander. The Mars Polar Lander failed, but that was probably due to an early engine cutoff due to a false sensor reading.
It's never happened to me (at least not from an AV problem). I have had far more difficulty with kernel updates not working or--worse--the update breaking the grub configuration and having to go in and figure out what happened. One of my F17 systems still is hosed from a bad grub2 update. Even with Windows, it's usually just fixing the MBR or, at worst, repairing the installation.
You say "only" and yet that is the worst of the problems. I'm probably going to start using Firefox for my GMail and Google+ monitoring at home for a while and see how memory does there. I've been using Chrome for them and yet those two tabs can, after a few days, suck up hundreds of megs each. I suspect Google needs to do some work on its own sites to improve memory management.
Interesting that you mention FF15. They introduced some new cleanup routines into FF15 that dramatically improve memory management by helping to clean up after memory is no longer needed. I've seen enough of an improvement on my work system that Chrome, which had become the primary browser, is now the memory hog in comparison.
The AV issue generally comes with a bad signature update, not a bad program update. Considering most of the several dozen AV companies update multiple times a day and we only see a critical problem every few months, that's a pretty good overall rate. I get a popup from my AV (ESET) when updates happen, but I'm not always in front of my computer when it happens, and I'm rather happy when it does update even when I don't tell it to do so.
The US has to divulge information it has about NPT violations. If it never assisted, it doesn't have to provide any information. Even if it knows for sure that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, it doesn't have to confirm that fact since Israel isn't a signatory unless it knows that Israel got it from some other willing nation similar to how non-signatory Pakistan's weapons designs ended up in North Korea and Iran (both signatories at the time). Legally, non-signatories can do just about what they want with nuclear material short of lobbing it at other countries.
I can't rule out that the US provided help after the NPT was signed. However, there has been a very, very long time for something like that to slip out and Israel has plenty of enemies in the government who don't like their espionage program that has stolen information from the US. I think it would be more likely that the US provided assistance up to the day before it signed and then stepped back. Israel doesn't need miniaturized weapons, and even if it did, remember that it has pulled in Jewish talent from around the globe, some of whom probably broke clearance laws in their former countries.
If they want it, they should go down the path that North Korea did and drop off the NPT. That will, of course, practically guarantee military action, but it's an option and the only legal one at that. I'm in the minority that thinks they want it and are building things up to just shy of actual construction, skirting legalities of construction (but probably breaking the treaty's openness provisions).
Iran wields a great deal of influence in Iraq right now and had a dream of basically running the Middle East. It had the run of Syria through al-Assad, mostly ran Lebanon via Hezbollah's majority in government, and a major proxy in Hamas. Its plans for expansion seem to be coming to a halt, though. It had hoped to garner influence in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Hamas and Hezbollah, unwilling to be seen as supporting the oppressive al-Assad government, have been reluctant at best to obey Iran's demands to provide men and resources, focusing instead on their local needs (and possibly suffering financially for it). Iran's dreams of controlling the Middle East (and maybe laying the ground for a caliphate upon the return of the 13th Imam), a decent possibility only three years ago, are now growing quite distant. Iv they stuck to more normal means of dealing with other countries, they wouldn't be in their current poor state.
You went where I figured you were going, and where I already addressed. But if that assistance came before the signing of the NPT (as France's did), there's nothing to investigate (as I've said a couple of times before). Even if they do admit they have nuclear weapons (which I don't expect anytime in the foreseeable future), unless and until they sign the NPT (which is even less likely to happen), the IAEA has no official business on Israeli soil investigating them. Israel's not about to turn over its designs, so there's nothing to compare. The IAEA can make requests as it does from time to time, but all they'll get is a diplomatic refusal from Israel.
It happens with a lot of politicians. Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa could do a passable version of William Shatner's Kirk if he replaced the uhs and ums with silence in his off-the cuff remarks.
Pakistan and India never signed it, either. But it's possible that the presence of nuclear weapons kept the last flare-up from getting out of control.
Israel has never admitted to having weapons but has never denied it, either. They do this specifically to keep the world guessing as part of its deterrence strategy. Had it not been for Mordechai Vanunu, the world might still be guessing about it instead of being almost completely certain. There is a small segment that thinks that Vanunu is actually either an agent or a dupe of Mossad and that his revelations were meant to cover up a lack of nuclear weapons. Building and maintaining them is, after all, hideously expensive. For example, sanctions aside, Iran would be in much better economic shape if it got its enriched uranium from those who have already sunk the start-up costs. But maintaining a significant home-grown defense capability--including nuclear weapons--provides a powerful capability that few nations have. Iran has learned this lesson, though not to the same capability as Israel.
But why? The evidence available suggests that even the US was guessing about Israeli nuclear capabilities until the 1970s. Israel may also have detonated a crude nuclear bomb in 1963, again before the NPT was first signed. The UN only gets involved if Israel signs the NPT and the IAEA starts inspections.
Why would the UN have to get involved? Israel isn't a signatory of the NPT and isn't bound by its provisions. The major assistance it got happened prior to 1968 (when the NPT was signed) when the Dimona reactor was being built by the French. Israel might have helped South Africa with its program, but South Africa didn't sign the NPT until 1991.
I think the Israelis have been very careful to ensure technical compatibility with other nations' signing status. They've got plenty of bright people (and some of them are spies) so could very well have developed the technology more or less on their own.
I expect that Valve will have formally supported distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, and CentOS), compatible distros where things *should* work but might break occasionally (Fedora, Arch), and then everything else. I can imagine Valve coming up with their own distro, but I think that's a long shot. Maintaining a distro is more work than most people realize, and I think that Valve is part of the smaller group there and will stay away from developing their own.
Cost is the main factor. As it now stands, the support required for the launch of a 130t payload is not very different from launching a 30t payload.
But that 130t payload also gives a lot of flexibility. If it can get 130t to LEO, it can get something like a third of that to GEO. Then again, the loss of one launcher also means the loss of a lot more payload in one shot.
There's also a need to understand other aspects of the law. In some states, vacation days are considered wages and cannot be subtracted once awarded (though a reasonable cap can be applied). Bonuses can be revoked, but those "fairly harsh" ideas presented are handled at the HR level, and if it's reached that level, then the defense against a lawsuit is weak at best.
The best defense is to not go down that path to begin with, or failing that, find some maturity quickly.
I was thinking about this recently. At some point, robots will be able to handle almost all of the jobs out there including many service jobs, something that has been happening over the last couple of decades anyway as the ability to order things via touch-tone phone and then later the Internet has removed the need for many entry-level customer service jobs. As computers and robots become more common, the ability to gain the basic skills to perform the more advanced skills beyond the contemporary capabilities of robots will become more difficult as well. Asimov's short story "The Feeling of Power" may have been a more prescient look at our future than it once seemed.
Either the economy will have to change dramatically, or a touch of luddism will need to be legally introduced to prevent certain jobs from going to robots (which itself will be a change to the underlying economic concepts upon which most of our societies are based).
Mistreatment has many levels from a clerk double-charging you for an item to torture that results in years of screaming agony. In his view, Kazaa mistreated its users. Personally, I think that the choice of whether to use free or non-free software devolves to the user. Therefore, I don't see mistreatment, but I can see where, in Stallman's view, it would constitute such.
It is a first-world problem, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a problem at all.
Actually, the costs without the wars has been over $1 trillion. If it were a billion, it wouldn't really be that much in the scheme of things, as it would be around $100 million per year since then.
What was the damage brought on by 9/11? Billions, and maybe even tens of billions. It was a lot of money, but did it justify a trillion dollars in spending? I tend to think that's a bit much. Lock the cockpit doors--that cost a few hundred million. Prevent non-passengers from going to the gate--that might have cost some terminal retailers and restaurants some money, but it might also have saved money by lowering operational costs such as cleaning and by shorter lines in the security scanners.
There are other things, but even in China, passengers no longer put up with hijackings. Absent someone willing to set off a competent bomb--something that was rare before 9/11 anyway--the risk is not really that much greater than it was, and is arguably lower. Said arguments generally come from people with much greater experience in the field than me, but the gist of it is clear to anyone who looks at it rationally.
The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. There are limits to what the majority can get. Slavery isn't coming back without a constitutional amendment, and that's hard enough to get for things most people think are probably reasonable policies but don't want in the Constitution itself.
You're right. I used the wrong word there: homophones is what I meant. Thank you for the correction.
I didn't include many of the examples that I see regularly: partial sentences, run-on sentences, subject-verb agreement, and so on. The most common homophone issues (they're/there/their and its/it's) would be caught by the grammar checker, though, as are many of the other minor ones. This is shown when I review documentation and find that it's lit up with squiggly lines. There are people that don't like me to read their documentation because I send it back marked up with grammatical corrections that should have been caught as they were writing it. They claim that it gets in the way of catching the real problems of the subject matter. On the other hand, managers frequently ask me to review things for grammar so that they don't look bad when their own bosses see it.
It's for a remote access token, like an RSA SecurID token. Even then, fob isn't the right word (a fob is a chain that is connected to something, often a watch), but it's better than FOB which, as arth1 pointed out, usually refers to shipping costs but can also refer to an offensive term for immigrants.
Slashdot Mirror
Libyan, not Iranian. The constable was shot by someone in the Lybian Embassy during a protest outside of the embassy gates. The Iranian Embassy incident involved hostages and the SAS going in to get them out.
Those are low speeds for some of the more recently-built craft. An acquaintance bought a plane recently for about $100K which, while limited on features, cruises at about 150 knots and maxes out a little under 180 knots. It's a fun plane to fly, though I can't land it myself since I don't have tail-wheel training. It's also limited on cargo and has only two seats, but since it's just him and his wife, jumping out to Las Vegas or Sacramento (where his parents live) isn't tough to do and doesn't take long.
The Flight Design C4, currently still in development, is targeting 1320 pounds useful load for a four-seater with a capability of 830 pounds of payload with full fuel. Max range is expected to be 1200NM for the avgas version and 1700NM for the diesel version at 65% and 75% power, respectively. The expected price is sharp at $300,000, but if they can pull it off, a lot of clubs are going to be buying it up as it vastly outperforms a C172 for the same price.
The unit mix-up was for the Mars Climate Orbiter, not a lander. The Mars Polar Lander failed, but that was probably due to an early engine cutoff due to a false sensor reading.
It's never happened to me (at least not from an AV problem). I have had far more difficulty with kernel updates not working or--worse--the update breaking the grub configuration and having to go in and figure out what happened. One of my F17 systems still is hosed from a bad grub2 update. Even with Windows, it's usually just fixing the MBR or, at worst, repairing the installation.
You say "only" and yet that is the worst of the problems. I'm probably going to start using Firefox for my GMail and Google+ monitoring at home for a while and see how memory does there. I've been using Chrome for them and yet those two tabs can, after a few days, suck up hundreds of megs each. I suspect Google needs to do some work on its own sites to improve memory management.
Interesting that you mention FF15. They introduced some new cleanup routines into FF15 that dramatically improve memory management by helping to clean up after memory is no longer needed. I've seen enough of an improvement on my work system that Chrome, which had become the primary browser, is now the memory hog in comparison.
The AV issue generally comes with a bad signature update, not a bad program update. Considering most of the several dozen AV companies update multiple times a day and we only see a critical problem every few months, that's a pretty good overall rate. I get a popup from my AV (ESET) when updates happen, but I'm not always in front of my computer when it happens, and I'm rather happy when it does update even when I don't tell it to do so.
Japan, Australia, and Israel have all expressed interest in the F-22, though the per-airframe cost is a major hindering point for all of them.
Not that I know of, though he did (does?) have a habit of messing around on his significant other.
This is the last post I'm making on the topic.
The US has to divulge information it has about NPT violations. If it never assisted, it doesn't have to provide any information. Even if it knows for sure that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, it doesn't have to confirm that fact since Israel isn't a signatory unless it knows that Israel got it from some other willing nation similar to how non-signatory Pakistan's weapons designs ended up in North Korea and Iran (both signatories at the time). Legally, non-signatories can do just about what they want with nuclear material short of lobbing it at other countries.
I can't rule out that the US provided help after the NPT was signed. However, there has been a very, very long time for something like that to slip out and Israel has plenty of enemies in the government who don't like their espionage program that has stolen information from the US. I think it would be more likely that the US provided assistance up to the day before it signed and then stepped back. Israel doesn't need miniaturized weapons, and even if it did, remember that it has pulled in Jewish talent from around the globe, some of whom probably broke clearance laws in their former countries.
If they want it, they should go down the path that North Korea did and drop off the NPT. That will, of course, practically guarantee military action, but it's an option and the only legal one at that. I'm in the minority that thinks they want it and are building things up to just shy of actual construction, skirting legalities of construction (but probably breaking the treaty's openness provisions).
Iran wields a great deal of influence in Iraq right now and had a dream of basically running the Middle East. It had the run of Syria through al-Assad, mostly ran Lebanon via Hezbollah's majority in government, and a major proxy in Hamas. Its plans for expansion seem to be coming to a halt, though. It had hoped to garner influence in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Hamas and Hezbollah, unwilling to be seen as supporting the oppressive al-Assad government, have been reluctant at best to obey Iran's demands to provide men and resources, focusing instead on their local needs (and possibly suffering financially for it). Iran's dreams of controlling the Middle East (and maybe laying the ground for a caliphate upon the return of the 13th Imam), a decent possibility only three years ago, are now growing quite distant. Iv they stuck to more normal means of dealing with other countries, they wouldn't be in their current poor state.
You went where I figured you were going, and where I already addressed. But if that assistance came before the signing of the NPT (as France's did), there's nothing to investigate (as I've said a couple of times before). Even if they do admit they have nuclear weapons (which I don't expect anytime in the foreseeable future), unless and until they sign the NPT (which is even less likely to happen), the IAEA has no official business on Israeli soil investigating them. Israel's not about to turn over its designs, so there's nothing to compare. The IAEA can make requests as it does from time to time, but all they'll get is a diplomatic refusal from Israel.
It happens with a lot of politicians. Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa could do a passable version of William Shatner's Kirk if he replaced the uhs and ums with silence in his off-the cuff remarks.
Pakistan and India never signed it, either. But it's possible that the presence of nuclear weapons kept the last flare-up from getting out of control.
Israel has never admitted to having weapons but has never denied it, either. They do this specifically to keep the world guessing as part of its deterrence strategy. Had it not been for Mordechai Vanunu, the world might still be guessing about it instead of being almost completely certain. There is a small segment that thinks that Vanunu is actually either an agent or a dupe of Mossad and that his revelations were meant to cover up a lack of nuclear weapons. Building and maintaining them is, after all, hideously expensive. For example, sanctions aside, Iran would be in much better economic shape if it got its enriched uranium from those who have already sunk the start-up costs. But maintaining a significant home-grown defense capability--including nuclear weapons--provides a powerful capability that few nations have. Iran has learned this lesson, though not to the same capability as Israel.
But why? The evidence available suggests that even the US was guessing about Israeli nuclear capabilities until the 1970s. Israel may also have detonated a crude nuclear bomb in 1963, again before the NPT was first signed. The UN only gets involved if Israel signs the NPT and the IAEA starts inspections.
Why would the UN have to get involved? Israel isn't a signatory of the NPT and isn't bound by its provisions. The major assistance it got happened prior to 1968 (when the NPT was signed) when the Dimona reactor was being built by the French. Israel might have helped South Africa with its program, but South Africa didn't sign the NPT until 1991.
I think the Israelis have been very careful to ensure technical compatibility with other nations' signing status. They've got plenty of bright people (and some of them are spies) so could very well have developed the technology more or less on their own.
I expect that Valve will have formally supported distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, and CentOS), compatible distros where things *should* work but might break occasionally (Fedora, Arch), and then everything else. I can imagine Valve coming up with their own distro, but I think that's a long shot. Maintaining a distro is more work than most people realize, and I think that Valve is part of the smaller group there and will stay away from developing their own.
Cost is the main factor. As it now stands, the support required for the launch of a 130t payload is not very different from launching a 30t payload.
But that 130t payload also gives a lot of flexibility. If it can get 130t to LEO, it can get something like a third of that to GEO. Then again, the loss of one launcher also means the loss of a lot more payload in one shot.
There's also a need to understand other aspects of the law. In some states, vacation days are considered wages and cannot be subtracted once awarded (though a reasonable cap can be applied). Bonuses can be revoked, but those "fairly harsh" ideas presented are handled at the HR level, and if it's reached that level, then the defense against a lawsuit is weak at best.
The best defense is to not go down that path to begin with, or failing that, find some maturity quickly.
I was thinking about this recently. At some point, robots will be able to handle almost all of the jobs out there including many service jobs, something that has been happening over the last couple of decades anyway as the ability to order things via touch-tone phone and then later the Internet has removed the need for many entry-level customer service jobs. As computers and robots become more common, the ability to gain the basic skills to perform the more advanced skills beyond the contemporary capabilities of robots will become more difficult as well. Asimov's short story "The Feeling of Power" may have been a more prescient look at our future than it once seemed.
Either the economy will have to change dramatically, or a touch of luddism will need to be legally introduced to prevent certain jobs from going to robots (which itself will be a change to the underlying economic concepts upon which most of our societies are based).
Mistreatment has many levels from a clerk double-charging you for an item to torture that results in years of screaming agony. In his view, Kazaa mistreated its users. Personally, I think that the choice of whether to use free or non-free software devolves to the user. Therefore, I don't see mistreatment, but I can see where, in Stallman's view, it would constitute such.
It is a first-world problem, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a problem at all.
Actually, the costs without the wars has been over $1 trillion. If it were a billion, it wouldn't really be that much in the scheme of things, as it would be around $100 million per year since then.
What was the damage brought on by 9/11? Billions, and maybe even tens of billions. It was a lot of money, but did it justify a trillion dollars in spending? I tend to think that's a bit much. Lock the cockpit doors--that cost a few hundred million. Prevent non-passengers from going to the gate--that might have cost some terminal retailers and restaurants some money, but it might also have saved money by lowering operational costs such as cleaning and by shorter lines in the security scanners.
There are other things, but even in China, passengers no longer put up with hijackings. Absent someone willing to set off a competent bomb--something that was rare before 9/11 anyway--the risk is not really that much greater than it was, and is arguably lower. Said arguments generally come from people with much greater experience in the field than me, but the gist of it is clear to anyone who looks at it rationally.
The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. There are limits to what the majority can get. Slavery isn't coming back without a constitutional amendment, and that's hard enough to get for things most people think are probably reasonable policies but don't want in the Constitution itself.
You're right. I used the wrong word there: homophones is what I meant. Thank you for the correction.
I didn't include many of the examples that I see regularly: partial sentences, run-on sentences, subject-verb agreement, and so on. The most common homophone issues (they're/there/their and its/it's) would be caught by the grammar checker, though, as are many of the other minor ones. This is shown when I review documentation and find that it's lit up with squiggly lines. There are people that don't like me to read their documentation because I send it back marked up with grammatical corrections that should have been caught as they were writing it. They claim that it gets in the way of catching the real problems of the subject matter. On the other hand, managers frequently ask me to review things for grammar so that they don't look bad when their own bosses see it.
It's for a remote access token, like an RSA SecurID token. Even then, fob isn't the right word (a fob is a chain that is connected to something, often a watch), but it's better than FOB which, as arth1 pointed out, usually refers to shipping costs but can also refer to an offensive term for immigrants.