Rumsfeld did have ideas which would have lowered overall spending had they succeeded. However, they flew in the face of thousands of years of military history, and are seen as having been instrumental in what was eventually a rather unceremonious exit. He essentially wanted to go to an all-Special Forces military, with only a few legacy systems for those cases when a couple of massive non-nuclear punches were required. I don't know if he watched Navy Seals one too many times, but nothing replaces boots on the ground when you want to hold ground -- something that Special Forces are not intended to do.
I generally have a Fuji S5100, which has the general shape of a professional camera (extended lens, opportunity for lens mounting, for which I have a zoom lens), but I have also on occasion borrowed a friend's Nikon D70 SLR, which cannot be mistaken for a point-and-shoot. Locations where I've taken pictures with the D70 have included LAX and JFK, both reported targets or prospective launch locations for post-9/11 attacks.
I fly fairly regularly (about once a month), and I routinely have my camera out, taking pictures of various parts of the airport, including the aircraft. I don't point it at security lines, but that's mostly because I don't have much interest in them. Never been bothered once in any of the seven or eight airports I've been to or through so far this year.
Ever look at the difference between the old analog aircraft gauges and the newer strip-based instruments in glass cockpits? There's a massive difference. Looking at the Cessna 172S and comparing the analog to G1000 versions, the turn coordinator is different, the airspeed indicator and altimeter are now sliding strips, and all of them are overlaid on the horizon indicator, which is now essentially the size of the screen. There are enough differences that a pilot moving from analog to G1000 generally has to be checked out before being allowed to fly it.
Interface overhauls should be carefully considered, but suggesting that they should never happen is akin to announcing that nothing more can be invented. That's been declared by many people over time, and they are often proven incorrect.
Any suggestions on a good program and book to start into ASM these days? I've poked around some, but a lot of the ASM projects out there have either stalled or seem to expect some experience. I'm fine with either Linux or Windows as a platform.
I kind of feel like I missed out on the golden age of assembly programming.
This is one of the reasons that I keep ISOs of various versions of Microsoft products for which I don't have keys. I've never bought a retail copy of Windows XP or later for myself, but I've had to deal with so many people who have lost their installation media that when I have found them, I've made ISOs that I can then burn and keep around just in case I do end up needing them later -- which is more frequent than I like.
They serve Glenlivet for scotch. I'm pretty happy with that, as I'm a single-malt guy and enjoy the various Glenlivet offerings, but I've heard other passengers complain mildly about the lack of Johnny Walker or Chivas Regal. Drinks run something like $6.
Having a practical headquarters separate from the actual headquarters is common even within the US. When I worked for an oil company a few years back, it was incorporated in Delaware, had its practical headquarters in Los Angeles, and its operational headquarters in Texas. The reasons were simple: relatively lax laws governing the activities of companies incorporated there, and simple tax savings. Thousands of companies with practical HQs across the US do the same thing.
Most people run Windows because they're comfortable with it. I've been told by several friends that they bought netbooks and then installed Windows on them because 'Linux is old and isn't compatible with anything.' Nothing I said could dislodge them of these notions.
Justices have for decades attempted to derail arguments with tangents, and they do it to both sides. Liberal justices will demand justification from attorneys representing a liberal side just as conservative justices will do with those representing a conservative point, and all question^W grill the representatives on the points while bringing up seemingly unrelated points, interrupting them at their pleasure. It takes nerves of steel to stand up in front of the Supreme Court, because they do know what they're talking about and they absolutely will cut off the unprepared at the knees, and continue moving up until there's nothing left, and woe unto the attorney who gets combative with the justices.
Remember that the justices have already read a great deal of case information by the time that oral debates have started, so they are often already leaning in one direction or another. However, there's also a great deal of work that goes on afterward as the justices debate the case internally, one of the reasons that the opinions take so long to come out in most cases. This is mostly a secret process, but there have been indications from some justices that a few debates have escalated to serious arguments with logic sometimes being tossed out the window. Traditions have developed over time to deal with those circumstances and allow the justices to at least end each term with civility, if not going home each night or weekend with some friendliness.
Agreed. To prevent moderation of one's own posts, a quick check of the moderator ID and user ID would suffice to prevent such actions. With all of the other changes they've been making, it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Unless the energy capacity of batteries or fuel cells can increase dramatically, there will still be a need for a sizable portion of them to be fueled by internal combustion. Trucks, for example, may become hybrids, but probably will not go all-electric, simply because of the need to deliver more overall energy than exists in battery designs as things stand right now or in the near future (going out 10-15 years). Even taking off those that (in the opinion of many Slashdotters) don't need trucks, there are still a lot of commercial trucks that aren't semis as well as people that pull boats, camper trailers, off-road vehicles, etc, for whom batteries may prove to be a poor solution.
Arrogance is never earned. It may be what drove him to reach the top, but it still tends to irritate a lot of other people. Before he got his waiver, his reason for violating the San Jose Airport's landing restrictions was essentially "I'm Larry Ellison." He essentially stated that he was above the law.
Gates can be tamed, as shown by Melinda. I've read a couple of articles that suggest that she has helped a great deal to bring out his human side. I don't think Ellison can be brought down off his high horse without a lance through the eye.
Re:How is this news?
on
Bringing Up Bill
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have much less respect for Larry Ellison than I do for Bill Gates. Gates might have been difficult to handle behind closed doors, but Ellison is just outright arrogant all over, from ignoring San Jose Airport's landing restrictions (and eventually getting a waiver for them) to withdrawing a $115 million pledge to Harvard University just because they changed presidents. I have also heard from people who have worked at Oracle that Ellison is at least as difficult to work with as Steve Ballmer, and that Oracle's management cares much less about the technology than about the money even when compared to Microsoft.
Prince is most certainly not living on old accomplishments. His commercial viability suffered in the late 1990s, but since then, he's released several albums that have sold very well (his last four have all been in the top 3 in the charts), went on a tour in 2004 that brought in nearly $90 million. He's still writing songs for other artists on top of all of that.
He may not be a friend of those in favor of copyright reform (he's about as much a copyright Nazi as Bono), but to suggest that he isn't busting his ass playing and creating music -- and doing so successfully -- is just flat wrong.
Quite the opposite. The argument often floated is that it's essential for the artists to allow them to survive. However, if most of them aren't getting enough money from residuals to survive anyway, I see no reason for the term of copyright to be extended, and in fact, I'm in favor of shortening it. Again, there are exceptions to the income issue. The Beatles are making money hand over fist nearly 40 years after they broke up. I'm sure Chuck Berry is getting some nice checks in the mail. Even Duke Ellington's estate is probably seeing reasonably large income. But how many others are seeing that? How much money is going to the estates of Wingy Manone or Zoot Sims?
For every artist out there still bringing in thousands of dollars a year in residuals, there are probably hundreds that can't buy a decent drink with what they get each year. There's no point in keeping that around on the one-in-a-million chance of a resurgence of popularity, and exceptions should not be making the rule.
Someone once posted some information about the average income for copyright holders past certain timeframes. IIRC, the average residual income for most performers after something like 20 years was very little, basically amounting to a few dollars per year. Let's face it -- Elvis Presley is the highest-paid dead performer, and the remaining Beatles and their estates may be collecting serious residuals, but they are by far the exceptions (and who really wants Yoko Ono to continue getting money off of Lennon's genius?). How much are Fine Young Cannibals making on residuals? Sister Sledge? 1910 Fruitgum Company? Those are Top 100 performers from 1989, 1979, and 1969, respectively. I expect they (or their survivors) are making their money either on the smaller tour circuits, or in professions that don't involve being on-stage.
I think they overlapped, actually. The first proposals for SDI came out in the mid-80s, and the last nuclear Nike batteries were decommissioned in the late-80s.
Nothing like preventing the enemy from sending your population into the stone age by doing the job yourself, eh?:)
To be fair, the Nike-Hercules missiles were among the last nuclear defenses intended to be employed. The first was to knock out air bases with nuclear strikes to prevent bombers from getting in the air in the first place. After that came air interception using missiles such as the AIR-2 Genie. Nuclear-tipped SAMs would attempt to intercept over the ocean or unpopulated territory where possible (the Nike-Hercules had a range of over 75 miles), and explode over populated territories only if nothing else worked.
How long does it take him now? I attended a lecture probably a decade ago at CalTech, and he took questions but was able to answer only one or two in the 45 minutes that followed. I've heard that the technology for his communications has been improved, but not to what degree.
The Ravens were retired a decade ago, and were not capable of taking out radars, but instead just blinding them. The Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler now provides most of those duties for the entire military. Unlike the Raven, the Prowler is capable of carrying anti-radiation missiles and actually striking radar sources. The Prowler is to be replaced by the EA-18 Growler (an off-shoot of the F/A-18F Super Hornet) beginning this year.
I tried looking up boom creep, and while I found several sites that discussed the risk, they didn't discuss what it was. Can you explain it in more depth?
Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld did have ideas which would have lowered overall spending had they succeeded. However, they flew in the face of thousands of years of military history, and are seen as having been instrumental in what was eventually a rather unceremonious exit. He essentially wanted to go to an all-Special Forces military, with only a few legacy systems for those cases when a couple of massive non-nuclear punches were required. I don't know if he watched Navy Seals one too many times, but nothing replaces boots on the ground when you want to hold ground -- something that Special Forces are not intended to do.
I generally have a Fuji S5100, which has the general shape of a professional camera (extended lens, opportunity for lens mounting, for which I have a zoom lens), but I have also on occasion borrowed a friend's Nikon D70 SLR, which cannot be mistaken for a point-and-shoot. Locations where I've taken pictures with the D70 have included LAX and JFK, both reported targets or prospective launch locations for post-9/11 attacks.
I fly fairly regularly (about once a month), and I routinely have my camera out, taking pictures of various parts of the airport, including the aircraft. I don't point it at security lines, but that's mostly because I don't have much interest in them. Never been bothered once in any of the seven or eight airports I've been to or through so far this year.
Ever look at the difference between the old analog aircraft gauges and the newer strip-based instruments in glass cockpits? There's a massive difference. Looking at the Cessna 172S and comparing the analog to G1000 versions, the turn coordinator is different, the airspeed indicator and altimeter are now sliding strips, and all of them are overlaid on the horizon indicator, which is now essentially the size of the screen. There are enough differences that a pilot moving from analog to G1000 generally has to be checked out before being allowed to fly it.
Interface overhauls should be carefully considered, but suggesting that they should never happen is akin to announcing that nothing more can be invented. That's been declared by many people over time, and they are often proven incorrect.
Any suggestions on a good program and book to start into ASM these days? I've poked around some, but a lot of the ASM projects out there have either stalled or seem to expect some experience. I'm fine with either Linux or Windows as a platform.
I kind of feel like I missed out on the golden age of assembly programming.
This is one of the reasons that I keep ISOs of various versions of Microsoft products for which I don't have keys. I've never bought a retail copy of Windows XP or later for myself, but I've had to deal with so many people who have lost their installation media that when I have found them, I've made ISOs that I can then burn and keep around just in case I do end up needing them later -- which is more frequent than I like.
They serve Glenlivet for scotch. I'm pretty happy with that, as I'm a single-malt guy and enjoy the various Glenlivet offerings, but I've heard other passengers complain mildly about the lack of Johnny Walker or Chivas Regal. Drinks run something like $6.
Having a practical headquarters separate from the actual headquarters is common even within the US. When I worked for an oil company a few years back, it was incorporated in Delaware, had its practical headquarters in Los Angeles, and its operational headquarters in Texas. The reasons were simple: relatively lax laws governing the activities of companies incorporated there, and simple tax savings. Thousands of companies with practical HQs across the US do the same thing.
Most people run Windows because they're comfortable with it. I've been told by several friends that they bought netbooks and then installed Windows on them because 'Linux is old and isn't compatible with anything.' Nothing I said could dislodge them of these notions.
Justices have for decades attempted to derail arguments with tangents, and they do it to both sides. Liberal justices will demand justification from attorneys representing a liberal side just as conservative justices will do with those representing a conservative point, and all question^W grill the representatives on the points while bringing up seemingly unrelated points, interrupting them at their pleasure. It takes nerves of steel to stand up in front of the Supreme Court, because they do know what they're talking about and they absolutely will cut off the unprepared at the knees, and continue moving up until there's nothing left, and woe unto the attorney who gets combative with the justices.
Remember that the justices have already read a great deal of case information by the time that oral debates have started, so they are often already leaning in one direction or another. However, there's also a great deal of work that goes on afterward as the justices debate the case internally, one of the reasons that the opinions take so long to come out in most cases. This is mostly a secret process, but there have been indications from some justices that a few debates have escalated to serious arguments with logic sometimes being tossed out the window. Traditions have developed over time to deal with those circumstances and allow the justices to at least end each term with civility, if not going home each night or weekend with some friendliness.
Agreed. To prevent moderation of one's own posts, a quick check of the moderator ID and user ID would suffice to prevent such actions. With all of the other changes they've been making, it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Galactic hunger could be solved with Stallman's beard!
Unless the energy capacity of batteries or fuel cells can increase dramatically, there will still be a need for a sizable portion of them to be fueled by internal combustion. Trucks, for example, may become hybrids, but probably will not go all-electric, simply because of the need to deliver more overall energy than exists in battery designs as things stand right now or in the near future (going out 10-15 years). Even taking off those that (in the opinion of many Slashdotters) don't need trucks, there are still a lot of commercial trucks that aren't semis as well as people that pull boats, camper trailers, off-road vehicles, etc, for whom batteries may prove to be a poor solution.
Unless you cleared your cookies or changed to another browser that didn't have your login, your mod was dropped when you posted, even as an AC.
Arrogance is never earned. It may be what drove him to reach the top, but it still tends to irritate a lot of other people. Before he got his waiver, his reason for violating the San Jose Airport's landing restrictions was essentially "I'm Larry Ellison." He essentially stated that he was above the law.
Gates can be tamed, as shown by Melinda. I've read a couple of articles that suggest that she has helped a great deal to bring out his human side. I don't think Ellison can be brought down off his high horse without a lance through the eye.
I have much less respect for Larry Ellison than I do for Bill Gates. Gates might have been difficult to handle behind closed doors, but Ellison is just outright arrogant all over, from ignoring San Jose Airport's landing restrictions (and eventually getting a waiver for them) to withdrawing a $115 million pledge to Harvard University just because they changed presidents. I have also heard from people who have worked at Oracle that Ellison is at least as difficult to work with as Steve Ballmer, and that Oracle's management cares much less about the technology than about the money even when compared to Microsoft.
Prince is most certainly not living on old accomplishments. His commercial viability suffered in the late 1990s, but since then, he's released several albums that have sold very well (his last four have all been in the top 3 in the charts), went on a tour in 2004 that brought in nearly $90 million. He's still writing songs for other artists on top of all of that.
He may not be a friend of those in favor of copyright reform (he's about as much a copyright Nazi as Bono), but to suggest that he isn't busting his ass playing and creating music -- and doing so successfully -- is just flat wrong.
Quite the opposite. The argument often floated is that it's essential for the artists to allow them to survive. However, if most of them aren't getting enough money from residuals to survive anyway, I see no reason for the term of copyright to be extended, and in fact, I'm in favor of shortening it. Again, there are exceptions to the income issue. The Beatles are making money hand over fist nearly 40 years after they broke up. I'm sure Chuck Berry is getting some nice checks in the mail. Even Duke Ellington's estate is probably seeing reasonably large income. But how many others are seeing that? How much money is going to the estates of Wingy Manone or Zoot Sims?
For every artist out there still bringing in thousands of dollars a year in residuals, there are probably hundreds that can't buy a decent drink with what they get each year. There's no point in keeping that around on the one-in-a-million chance of a resurgence of popularity, and exceptions should not be making the rule.
Someone once posted some information about the average income for copyright holders past certain timeframes. IIRC, the average residual income for most performers after something like 20 years was very little, basically amounting to a few dollars per year. Let's face it -- Elvis Presley is the highest-paid dead performer, and the remaining Beatles and their estates may be collecting serious residuals, but they are by far the exceptions (and who really wants Yoko Ono to continue getting money off of Lennon's genius?). How much are Fine Young Cannibals making on residuals? Sister Sledge? 1910 Fruitgum Company? Those are Top 100 performers from 1989, 1979, and 1969, respectively. I expect they (or their survivors) are making their money either on the smaller tour circuits, or in professions that don't involve being on-stage.
I think they overlapped, actually. The first proposals for SDI came out in the mid-80s, and the last nuclear Nike batteries were decommissioned in the late-80s.
Nothing like preventing the enemy from sending your population into the stone age by doing the job yourself, eh? :)
To be fair, the Nike-Hercules missiles were among the last nuclear defenses intended to be employed. The first was to knock out air bases with nuclear strikes to prevent bombers from getting in the air in the first place. After that came air interception using missiles such as the AIR-2 Genie. Nuclear-tipped SAMs would attempt to intercept over the ocean or unpopulated territory where possible (the Nike-Hercules had a range of over 75 miles), and explode over populated territories only if nothing else worked.
How long does it take him now? I attended a lecture probably a decade ago at CalTech, and he took questions but was able to answer only one or two in the 45 minutes that followed. I've heard that the technology for his communications has been improved, but not to what degree.
The Ravens were retired a decade ago, and were not capable of taking out radars, but instead just blinding them. The Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler now provides most of those duties for the entire military. Unlike the Raven, the Prowler is capable of carrying anti-radiation missiles and actually striking radar sources. The Prowler is to be replaced by the EA-18 Growler (an off-shoot of the F/A-18F Super Hornet) beginning this year.
That's what it kind of sounded like. I imagined it as a loss of pressure due to leakage past the seals, which seems to be correct.
Thanks.
I tried looking up boom creep, and while I found several sites that discussed the risk, they didn't discuss what it was. Can you explain it in more depth?