The intrinsic value of gold and silver (amongst many other similar materials) is that they are visually pleasing to humans. Aesthetics have important emotional and psychological functions which rank only marginally below those required for survival.
Talk to any anthropologist worth their salt, and you'll find all the evidence you need to show it is a universal trait amongst human cultures. Creation of jewelry is second only to specialized tool use in defining modern human behavior.
So the price of gold on international markets is determined by gold's visual appeal? When gold goes up by $100/ounce, is that because humans found gold to be intrinsically more aesthetically pleasing by $100/ounce than the day before?
Once could certainly argue that gold's real value is far below its current market value and that gold is in a 4000-year bubble. Gold does have use in jewelry, space tech, and some industrial applications... but it would be pretty difficult to argue that any of these drives the prices of gold.
People invest in gold for the same reasons they invest in anything else that doesn't pay dividends: a) they think there is a greater fool b) they think it will increase in value or c) they feel it is the best risk/reward tradeoff for their concerns on inflation, currency fluctuations, etc. I'm missing a few other options, but you get my drift.
Who gives a fuck if a job is lost? I have no problem replacing men with machines. A competent man will find a new way to sustain himself without relying on holding back progress.
I think considering a superhero fantasy a valid answer to economic problem explains quite a bit about the current state of the economy. Or should that be a supervillain - that bit about replacing men with machines certainly sounded ominous...
It is quite possible that the GP is a misandrist who is quite fond of adult gadgets powerful enough to be called "machines". If you read the comment in that light, you may find yourself in complete agreement!
Every time you make a system too efficient, you reduce the number of workers but with economies it's important to have as many people working as possible.
Working to create goods or value does not equal working to shuffle goods or value around on paper (as distinct from physically relocating goods, ie shipping, which does create actual value).
Some jobs just should not exist in the first place. Putting people out of them merely means having people available to do "real" work.
The key word there is "available". There are no guarantees that the available people will actually be able to find "real" work. Changing economic realities create real losers--those who cannot adapt to the new reality and will be unable to earn similar or greater salaries. Many armchair economists forget that these are real people who make up a significant portion of society and must be dealt with.
The Luddites were real and had a few good points, even if it's currently referred to as the Luddite fallacy in some circles (I love the Keynes quote at the top). Ultimately, the economy will likely work itself out, but we're all going to be in for a world of hurt if we don't either a) find gainful employment for displaced workers or b) provide some sort of welfare/guaranteed income.
We spent more as a nation (the UK) on cellphone ringtones last year than we did on fusion power research, and we have JET in Oxford.
So maybe the ITER scientists should sell ring tones for funding?
Actually not a terrible idea. I imagine NASA could fund a couple more missions if it could charge licensing fees for its videos and photos. ITER needs more money, though, so they should just open some frozen yogurt shops instead. Cool space-y machines, girl behind the counter wearing a lab coat, tokamak-shaped desserts? I'd go.
The problem is, they ask bureaucrats for assistance, rather than visionary private investors who want to see a good and timely return and exploit the heck out of the resulting technology. Heck, why not copy what was done in the space industry a few years ago and make an F Prize contest? First group to make a fusion reactor that can output more than its input and sustain that reaction for an hour wins a prize. The current shenanigans going on in the fusion world are just mind-bogglingly moronic - get on with it, people!
Private investors make a fortune by investing in profitable improvements on existing technologies. They don't usually invent all of the underlying technologies, particularly at the basic research level. In other words, SpaceX could not have succeeded before Sputnik, ATLAS, Apollo, the shuttle program, etc.
When government funded research gets close to making fusion commercially viable, the Richard Bransons of the world will finish development and make it profitable. No sooner.
...That multiple interpretations are claimed, does not mean that multiple interpretations are valid...You are making an Argument From Ignorance here, based on your -personal- knowledge, which is hardly remotely definitive...The defining documentation (i.e. "the bible") allows for little variance on a topic-by-topic basis, unless one is simply ignoring the text. That scenario, however common it may be, is irrelevant to the issue.
I don't have time for a thorough reply, and you don't seem amenable to reason in your other posts, so I'll make this brief. First, my argument is not "from ignorance". If anything, it's "authority". The overwhelming theological consensus is that there is no consensus. Every religion thinks their translation and interpretation is correct. New denominations form all the time. You obviously also believe you have the correct interpretation. That's amusing.
Care to share with us your One True Interpretation (and translation)? And then, specifically, how do you apply that interpretation to modern life? Slavery still ok? How should women be treated? If you're not 100% literal in every reading of every passage, how do you determine which passage is to be interpreted in which way?
The problem with this objection, in contrast to where it actually applies, is that Christianity actually has specific documented definition and norms.
That there is debate regarding particular points, does not make it an analogous "Scotsman" context any more than it would for physics.
I was about to mod you "Funny", but I realized you might not be kidding. Definitions of "Christian" are just as open to interpretation as the underlying religious texts. Go ask some southern baptists if Mormons and Catholics are Christians.
Your argument is "Hitler was not a True Christian because no True Christian would do what Hitler did." Irrespective of whether Hitler was a practicing member of the religious community, had the full support of his church, or justified his actions with Christianity.
I can understand most of those, but how long do you think that's going to hold into the future? Are you using XP64?
It seems that some work is getting much more complex over time, esp. image and video manipulation. I had to upgrade some systems because 4GB of RAM just doesn't cut it these days.
Tried the VM approach with a materials stress testing machine. Didn't work out too well. It's software that can only run on XP with an RS232 port to access test results. To say this specific vertical hardware/software solution is expensive would be an understatement.
I haven't priced one out in awhile, but I'm guessing the newer versions will just run some form of Linux with an SMB connection back to a Windows file server.
I'm also surprised that the RS232 was an issue. I got similar industrial equipment working with, believe it or not: Windows 7 Pro's "XP Mode". I had to disable some OpenGL? settings and teach people to manually attach the USB dongle on reboots, but aside from that, it works without a hitch.
The things cost half a million dollars each. More than one institution owns one. They can either replace them at a collective cost of tens of millions or they can spend likely less than $100,000 on an open source reverse engineering effort that could get them another decade or two of use.
Or they could just keep running XP. They won't just go out and decide to make drivers in some organized fashion. Pretty standard collective action problem, really.
And even if they did, why the hell would they do it for linux? And which distros should they support? Are they going to port the app/front-end/whatever too? Who is going to guarantee they work into the future?
This is probably a good niche business if somebody can do the reverse engineering to make this sort of gear work. But it'll be closed source, and priced to be profitable.
In my state, Maine, we had one of the first "large" nuclear reactors fully decommissioned. I think it took around a decade, and one of the last things they did was ship the reactor vessel to some southern state (by rail or barge) for processing/disposal. Then the containment building was demolished. The only thing left is a several acre concrete pad they constructed on which they placed "dry-cask" storage containers full of spent fuel. This fuel must remain on site, at a cost of around $1,000,000 per year, until the federal government finally has a solution for storage/disposal.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Do you know what the $1,000,000/year costs are? I can understand some security expenses, etc. but I don't understand $1m. I'm assuming the dry casks don't require any active cooling?
What you should fear, then, is the USA using "flaws" in Chinese gear to spy on you. Do you _really_ think the world's major powers are _enemies_ at this point? A war on their own soil would be proof of real enmity, but all the wars are fought through proxies.
By that logic, the USSR and US were not enemies during the Cold War, either.
Between nuclear powers with robust second strike capabilities, direct shooting wars are extremely unlikely. It doesn't mean they aren't maneuvering for the others' complete annihilation, just that they aren't willing to blow up the entire planet to bring it about.
That said, I don't believe the US, China, or Russia can be considered "enemies". They are dynamic relationships where the countries can be opposed on some issues and allied on others. Each country can align with any other to balance a rising superpower, and each will cooperate when it is in their best interests to do so.
China would not share any backdoors with the US. NSA might be able to discover and use these flaws, but it wouldn't be due to Chinese cooperation. Why would China want to abandon a valuable intelligence source AND give it to the US?
Your post is flawed in several ways. First, "____ started it!" is the most ridiculous line of reasoning I have ever heard in the discussion of international relations. If you really want to go to the first insult or some such, you'll have to go back thousands of years. All parties involved have plenty of reason to distrust each other, and emotions within certain groups run high. Additionally, we wouldn't be in the current situation if any single state actor had acted differently in history. Probably true for the last 100 years. So give the history a rest, will you?
It has not been demonstrated that they do actually have a covert weapons program.
So what? It *has* been demonstrated that they have a covert nuclear program that, among other things, drastically exceeds the enrichment capacity needed by a nuclear power program. They might be working on a weapon, or they might just be working on nuclear breakout capability. But it looks like we can be at least 99% confident now that they are working towards the ability to make weapons. They are also working on most (if not all) aspects related to nuclear weapons, particularly delivery. This troubles other states because a rapid breakout capability means Iran could develop a nuclear weapon faster than the international community could respond (strikes, invasion), hence Iran would have a credible nuclear deterrent. Many feel this would embolden Iran and make Iran more difficult to constrain/contain.
If the US had this much real evidence against Iraq, the invasion would not have been contentious. Iran 2012-UN bears little resemblance to Iraq 2002-US.
In addition, they are a sovereign country even if they were I would not begrudge them that. Several of their (hostile) neighbors have them, and the U.S. (also hostile) has enough nukes to decimate all life on earth... why should they not be allowed to pursue them? Stop crying foul over this bullshit.
Your logic is inconsistent. You are describing an anarchic system on Iran's side and a rule-based system for the US. You can't have both. If Iran is a sovereign nation that can "do what it wants", then the U.S. and its allies are also sovereign nations that can do what they want (attempt to stop Iran). If Iran is "allowed" to do anything according to any sort of international rules, then Iran must also be restricted by those rules.
Team US-Israel has the same "rights" as Iran. They can do anything they want, unless someone else prevents them, and are subject to the responses of other states. Iran feels it is in its best interest to develop nuclear weapons capability. US-Israel feel it is in their best interests to prevent this.
If you want fair, go play Tiddlywinks. Otherwise, quit "crying foul over this bullshit".
especially one inside the confines of an aircraft. I can only imagine how the ground crew and engineers were treated upon landing.
(Bay door opens)
Engineer: So how'd it.....(several angry loadmasters exit with torn flight suits and reeking of pig shit).....nevermind. So, uhhhh, pork chops for dinner tonight?
Loadmaster: Pork chops for dinner tonight.
Nah. Engineers are an important part of the crew (Flight Engineer). Here's the more likely version:
(Bay door opens)
Loadmaster: Pork chops for dinner tonight.
Crew chief (seeing mess): Shit! I am NOT cleaning that up! HAZMAT!!!!
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to compare here (Amazon AWS?). Amazon S3 is not the equivalent of Backblaze. Amazon Glacier is.
At lowest prices*: Glacier: $0.01/GB/month -- $10 per TB per month S3 Standard: $0.125/GB/month -- $125 per TB per month S3 Reduced Redundancy: $0.093/GB/month $93 per TB per month
Where are you getting $30 for "AWS"?
*Prices exclude data transfer charges, which shouldn't apply to most long-term backup situations
I haven't done double-blind testing, and should state that my experience does compare nasty tasteless supermarket produce to home-grown, organic (actual, not certified), ripe, and fresh-picked vegetables. Not a fair comparison, by any measure.
Indeed, extraordinarily unfair. And also quite valid.
I am too lazy to pull up the research, but I have seen some that basically says: ripeness and time between picking and consumption matter. Organic? Not nearly as much. So an organic apple from South Africa, picked well before it was ready and ripened on a cargo ship, is going to be far less nutritious or tasty than a locally grown factory farm apple, harvested when ripe and eaten immediately.
They are in decline and they are no longer a superpower. But... Russia has nukes, is able to field an army, and can be VERY aggressive. Not quite a chihuahua, perhaps more like a bulldog amongst wolfhounds. More time needs to pass for them to fade enough to feel confident that they are chihuahuas on the world stage.
I don't know dog breeds all that well, but Russia can only "field an army" to a certain degree. They can certainly deploy enough troops to invade a small neighbor for a short period of time. They are almost certainly incapable of conducting large-scale operations across the globe. Their military is underpaid, undertrained, ill-equipped, and has low morale... I wouldn't put too much stock in their success against a major power. Given the competition, Russia is unlikely to become a regional hegemon in the next several decades. Without their UNSC veto and nuclear arsenal, Russia would be rather weak.
You're drinking the apple koolaid. I'm looking at the Apple store right now, they charge $2500 for the cheapest Mac Pro. Here's a breakdown of the specs with the equivalent prices on newegg:
... Apple Magic Mouse - generic cheapo mouse, $10 on newegg...That's a difference of $1518. Why does their workstation cost so much?
Certainly not a $1500 difference, but it is worth nothing that the Magic Mouse isn't some generic mouse. It's basically a trackpad on the back of a [tiny] mouse. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent product available for PCs, but it would cost more than $10 if it was done well. Personally, I thought the magic mouse was cool tech but way too small for my hands. I gave it to my niece. Your comparison probably also misses a few key features: thunderbolt?, FireWire 800, warranty on assembed product, etc. The Mac Pro is definitely the worst offender, though--and overpriced. They haven't given the hardware a proper update and seem dead set on screwing that market segment.
The iMac would probably be a more fair comparison. I bought one a couple years ago because my old MBP held up so much better than my Dell laptops (last one literally blew up). I looked for similar all-in-one systems and couldn't find a single competitor that was well done. Some were just ugly as shit, others had terrible specs and reviews. In the end, I got what I wanted from the only company producing a system to fill this niche. Upgrading my own RAM also saved me from being gouged $600 or somesuch by Apple.
Depending on where you're located, the payback for a roof full of solar panels will likely be somewhere between 5-8 years, if energy prices don't go up. Panels are typically coming in with 20 or 25 year warranties, and the switchgear is like any other power switching equipment (keep the filters clean and the mice out). Plus then you can advertise that you're green, if you want. Isolating yourself from rising energy costs, even in part, may be attractive.
Keep in mind power requirements and local/state laws. Machine shops usually require three-phase power. Transformers that support that will cost extra. Additionally, net metering and similar issues are subject to legislation. In some states solar currently makes sense for an environment like this, but not in others... and there are definitely no long-term guarantees.
Of course "Japan as a whole" doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. The majority of the US presence in "Japan" is actually on the islands of Okinawa. Ten Percent of the land in Okinawa is US military bases. Understand what that means. TEN PERCENT of an island nation is taken up by a foreign military power, and islands aren't known for having a lot of spare land.
I am quite aware of the size and impact of American bases on Okinawa (estimates I saw were closer to 20% of Okinawa main island, 10% of the prefecture). There are also problems with various illicit activities, bars, drunk drivers, and occasional issues with rapes, molestation, and plenty of others. The rates really aren't very high considering the large number of personnel stationed there, but Okinawans understandably get quite upset about it.
However, the situation is far more complicated than that. Many Okinawans benefit from the US Dollars pouring in. Landlords, restaurant owners/employees, shops, service providers, auto dealers, etc. all benefit from the US presence. Real estate developers and tourism operators believe they will benefit from an American departure/relocation. I don't have current polling data, but I suspect a low percentage feels very strongly either way and that the majority follows news coverage (Marine punches a baby, everyone wants US gone... a year later 20% want US gone). Most of the protests in Okinawa feature a small crowd posing in front of a base for 2 minutes for a photo opp, after which the crowd returns to work (some of them on base). A few also try to troll Americans into hitting them. This happened to a friend of mine, who was smart enough to notice the other "activist" filming.
Given Okinawa's economy and resources, I doubt they would actually be able to replace all of the lost US revenue. What they really seem to want is a better deal: either reduced US impact on Okinawa or greater compensation for the burden. Most seem to understand the role the US plays in the region and want that to continue to benefit Japan.
Okinawa has wanted the American bases gone or reduced for a long time. Mainland Japan doesn't give a shit about Okinawa. But because Okinawa legally became a province of Japan after WWII, people say "Japan doesn't mind the US military presence." Well, nice, that's an accurate statement. But the people of Okinawa who have to put up with our military certainly do mind.
I absolutely agree that many Okinawans take exception to that burden (with some caveats). However, my reply was to jamstar7's complaint that the bases were built for occupation, with the implication that they are no longer needed (or serve some sort of imperial purpose?). My response, which I believe you would agree with, was an attempt to show that [West] Germany and Japan rather wanted US bases during the Cold War... and also that Japan (nationally) continues to desire a strong US military presence. Although the domestic politics certainly don't favor the Okinawans, who deserve more than they get from the deal.
How is it that the government can refuse to grant a security clearance based on sexual orientation under the notion that it could be used to blackmail someone, but allow the use of software with a proven and highly publicized record of leaking information? What's more, people with security clearances are subjected to intense scrutiny -- their supervisors know about every little aspect of their lives, including that little dimple on the inside of your right thigh, yet routinely employ software that is essentially a big black box -- nobody knows how or why it works.
I am not sure where you got this information, but it is incorrect. I am not aware of any agency discriminating on hetero/homosexual orientation. Some sexual activities (bestiality, child molestation, pandering/prostitution) may become factors. Somebody may still care about orientation, but these days, I highly doubt it. The original NSA decision on orientation revolved around whether the person was out of the closet. If they were out, they couldn't be blackmailed. If they were in the closet, they could be. That is probably still the case, esp. if someone has a straight facade and is cheating on their spouse.
Supervisors don't know about every aspect of their employees' lives. The security people, however, may know quite a bit. It really depends on where the person works, their position, etc.
My big question, then, is whether the local farmers think global warming is some sort of communist plot. Do they think the climate is in the process of permanently shifting, or do they just think this is a bad year?
The bases in Germany, Italy, and Japan were installed after WW2 for the occupation. Last I heard, the occupation is long over, but the bases remain.
I am sure you will recall that history didn't end at WW2. Germany rather wanted American bases there for some reason. I think it had something to do with a hostile neighbor?
Okinawa has some issues with American bases (mainly the USMC and noise concerns), but Japan as a whole doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. Japan gets to benefit from a strong military while spending very little on their own. Between PRC, DPRK, and all the other volatility in the region, pretty much everyone wants the public good only the US is willing to pay to provide.
I think this level of understanding of foreign policy matters in countries like Pakistan exceeds most of the staff of both the Defense and State Depts.
Since we're attacking people today, I can understand why you wouldn't know your head from your ass with your head so far up your ass.
State and Defense are both filled to the brim with people who understand foreign affairs. Unless your last name is Waltz, there's a pretty good chance they understand it a hell of a lot better than you do. Even the average grunt in Afghanistan has a good understanding of the situation.
If you want to see complete ignorance of foreign cultures, I recommend the following: mainstream media coverage, Fox News, Mitt Romney 2.0, and the Tea Party. To cure your own ignorance, talk to a few foreign service officers and a few vets.
Slashdot Mirror
The intrinsic value of gold and silver (amongst many other similar materials) is that they are visually pleasing to humans. Aesthetics have important emotional and psychological functions which rank only marginally below those required for survival.
Talk to any anthropologist worth their salt, and you'll find all the evidence you need to show it is a universal trait amongst human cultures. Creation of jewelry is second only to specialized tool use in defining modern human behavior.
So the price of gold on international markets is determined by gold's visual appeal? When gold goes up by $100/ounce, is that because humans found gold to be intrinsically more aesthetically pleasing by $100/ounce than the day before?
Once could certainly argue that gold's real value is far below its current market value and that gold is in a 4000-year bubble. Gold does have use in jewelry, space tech, and some industrial applications... but it would be pretty difficult to argue that any of these drives the prices of gold.
People invest in gold for the same reasons they invest in anything else that doesn't pay dividends: a) they think there is a greater fool b) they think it will increase in value or c) they feel it is the best risk/reward tradeoff for their concerns on inflation, currency fluctuations, etc. I'm missing a few other options, but you get my drift.
I think considering a superhero fantasy a valid answer to economic problem explains quite a bit about the current state of the economy. Or should that be a supervillain - that bit about replacing men with machines certainly sounded ominous...
It is quite possible that the GP is a misandrist who is quite fond of adult gadgets powerful enough to be called "machines". If you read the comment in that light, you may find yourself in complete agreement!
Every time you make a system too efficient, you reduce the number of workers but with economies it's important to have as many people working as possible.
Working to create goods or value does not equal working to shuffle goods or value around on paper (as distinct from physically relocating goods, ie shipping, which does create actual value).
Some jobs just should not exist in the first place. Putting people out of them merely means having people available to do "real" work.
The key word there is "available". There are no guarantees that the available people will actually be able to find "real" work. Changing economic realities create real losers--those who cannot adapt to the new reality and will be unable to earn similar or greater salaries. Many armchair economists forget that these are real people who make up a significant portion of society and must be dealt with.
The Luddites were real and had a few good points, even if it's currently referred to as the Luddite fallacy in some circles (I love the Keynes quote at the top). Ultimately, the economy will likely work itself out, but we're all going to be in for a world of hurt if we don't either a) find gainful employment for displaced workers or b) provide some sort of welfare/guaranteed income.
So maybe the ITER scientists should sell ring tones for funding?
Actually not a terrible idea. I imagine NASA could fund a couple more missions if it could charge licensing fees for its videos and photos. ITER needs more money, though, so they should just open some frozen yogurt shops instead. Cool space-y machines, girl behind the counter wearing a lab coat, tokamak-shaped desserts? I'd go.
The problem is, they ask bureaucrats for assistance, rather than visionary private investors who want to see a good and timely return and exploit the heck out of the resulting technology. Heck, why not copy what was done in the space industry a few years ago and make an F Prize contest? First group to make a fusion reactor that can output more than its input and sustain that reaction for an hour wins a prize. The current shenanigans going on in the fusion world are just mind-bogglingly moronic - get on with it, people!
Private investors make a fortune by investing in profitable improvements on existing technologies. They don't usually invent all of the underlying technologies, particularly at the basic research level. In other words, SpaceX could not have succeeded before Sputnik, ATLAS, Apollo, the shuttle program, etc.
When government funded research gets close to making fusion commercially viable, the Richard Bransons of the world will finish development and make it profitable. No sooner.
...That multiple interpretations are claimed, does not mean that multiple interpretations are valid...You are making an Argument From Ignorance here, based on your -personal- knowledge, which is hardly remotely definitive...The defining documentation (i.e. "the bible") allows for little variance on a topic-by-topic basis, unless one is simply ignoring the text. That scenario, however common it may be, is irrelevant to the issue.
I don't have time for a thorough reply, and you don't seem amenable to reason in your other posts, so I'll make this brief. First, my argument is not "from ignorance". If anything, it's "authority". The overwhelming theological consensus is that there is no consensus. Every religion thinks their translation and interpretation is correct. New denominations form all the time. You obviously also believe you have the correct interpretation. That's amusing.
Care to share with us your One True Interpretation (and translation)? And then, specifically, how do you apply that interpretation to modern life? Slavery still ok? How should women be treated? If you're not 100% literal in every reading of every passage, how do you determine which passage is to be interpreted in which way?
The problem with this objection, in contrast to where it actually applies, is that Christianity actually has specific documented definition and norms.
That there is debate regarding particular points, does not make it an analogous "Scotsman" context any more than it would for physics.
I was about to mod you "Funny", but I realized you might not be kidding. Definitions of "Christian" are just as open to interpretation as the underlying religious texts. Go ask some southern baptists if Mormons and Catholics are Christians.
Your argument is "Hitler was not a True Christian because no True Christian would do what Hitler did." Irrespective of whether Hitler was a practicing member of the religious community, had the full support of his church, or justified his actions with Christianity.
I can understand most of those, but how long do you think that's going to hold into the future? Are you using XP64?
It seems that some work is getting much more complex over time, esp. image and video manipulation. I had to upgrade some systems because 4GB of RAM just doesn't cut it these days.
Tried the VM approach with a materials stress testing machine. Didn't work out too well. It's software that can only run on XP with an RS232 port to access test results. To say this specific vertical hardware/software solution is expensive would be an understatement.
I haven't priced one out in awhile, but I'm guessing the newer versions will just run some form of Linux with an SMB connection back to a Windows file server.
I'm also surprised that the RS232 was an issue. I got similar industrial equipment working with, believe it or not: Windows 7 Pro's "XP Mode". I had to disable some OpenGL? settings and teach people to manually attach the USB dongle on reboots, but aside from that, it works without a hitch.
The things cost half a million dollars each. More than one institution owns one. They can either replace them at a collective cost of tens of millions or they can spend likely less than $100,000 on an open source reverse engineering effort that could get them another decade or two of use.
Or they could just keep running XP. They won't just go out and decide to make drivers in some organized fashion. Pretty standard collective action problem, really.
And even if they did, why the hell would they do it for linux? And which distros should they support? Are they going to port the app/front-end/whatever too? Who is going to guarantee they work into the future?
This is probably a good niche business if somebody can do the reverse engineering to make this sort of gear work. But it'll be closed source, and priced to be profitable.
In my state, Maine, we had one of the first "large" nuclear reactors fully decommissioned. I think it took around a decade, and one of the last things they did was ship the reactor vessel to some southern state (by rail or barge) for processing/disposal. Then the containment building was demolished. The only thing left is a several acre concrete pad they constructed on which they placed "dry-cask" storage containers full of spent fuel. This fuel must remain on site, at a cost of around $1,000,000 per year, until the federal government finally has a solution for storage/disposal.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Do you know what the $1,000,000/year costs are? I can understand some security expenses, etc. but I don't understand $1m. I'm assuming the dry casks don't require any active cooling?
What you should fear, then, is the USA using "flaws" in Chinese gear to spy on you. Do you _really_ think the world's major powers are _enemies_ at this point? A war on their own soil would be proof of real enmity, but all the wars are fought through proxies.
By that logic, the USSR and US were not enemies during the Cold War, either.
Between nuclear powers with robust second strike capabilities, direct shooting wars are extremely unlikely. It doesn't mean they aren't maneuvering for the others' complete annihilation, just that they aren't willing to blow up the entire planet to bring it about.
That said, I don't believe the US, China, or Russia can be considered "enemies". They are dynamic relationships where the countries can be opposed on some issues and allied on others. Each country can align with any other to balance a rising superpower, and each will cooperate when it is in their best interests to do so.
China would not share any backdoors with the US. NSA might be able to discover and use these flaws, but it wouldn't be due to Chinese cooperation. Why would China want to abandon a valuable intelligence source AND give it to the US?
Your post is flawed in several ways. First, "____ started it!" is the most ridiculous line of reasoning I have ever heard in the discussion of international relations. If you really want to go to the first insult or some such, you'll have to go back thousands of years. All parties involved have plenty of reason to distrust each other, and emotions within certain groups run high. Additionally, we wouldn't be in the current situation if any single state actor had acted differently in history. Probably true for the last 100 years. So give the history a rest, will you?
It has not been demonstrated that they do actually have a covert weapons program.
So what? It *has* been demonstrated that they have a covert nuclear program that, among other things, drastically exceeds the enrichment capacity needed by a nuclear power program. They might be working on a weapon, or they might just be working on nuclear breakout capability. But it looks like we can be at least 99% confident now that they are working towards the ability to make weapons. They are also working on most (if not all) aspects related to nuclear weapons, particularly delivery. This troubles other states because a rapid breakout capability means Iran could develop a nuclear weapon faster than the international community could respond (strikes, invasion), hence Iran would have a credible nuclear deterrent. Many feel this would embolden Iran and make Iran more difficult to constrain/contain.
If the US had this much real evidence against Iraq, the invasion would not have been contentious. Iran 2012-UN bears little resemblance to Iraq 2002-US.
In addition, they are a sovereign country even if they were I would not begrudge them that. Several of their (hostile) neighbors have them, and the U.S. (also hostile) has enough nukes to decimate all life on earth... why should they not be allowed to pursue them? Stop crying foul over this bullshit.
Your logic is inconsistent. You are describing an anarchic system on Iran's side and a rule-based system for the US. You can't have both. If Iran is a sovereign nation that can "do what it wants", then the U.S. and its allies are also sovereign nations that can do what they want (attempt to stop Iran). If Iran is "allowed" to do anything according to any sort of international rules, then Iran must also be restricted by those rules.
Team US-Israel has the same "rights" as Iran. They can do anything they want, unless someone else prevents them, and are subject to the responses of other states. Iran feels it is in its best interest to develop nuclear weapons capability. US-Israel feel it is in their best interests to prevent this.
If you want fair, go play Tiddlywinks. Otherwise, quit "crying foul over this bullshit".
So much for realism :( need some edit buttons. I meant to replace "Bay door opens" with "ramp and door open" before I posted.
especially one inside the confines of an aircraft. I can only imagine how the ground crew and engineers were treated upon landing.
(Bay door opens)
Engineer: So how'd it.....(several angry loadmasters exit with torn flight suits and reeking of pig shit).....nevermind. So, uhhhh, pork chops for dinner tonight?
Loadmaster: Pork chops for dinner tonight.
Nah. Engineers are an important part of the crew (Flight Engineer). Here's the more likely version:
(Bay door opens)
Loadmaster: Pork chops for dinner tonight.
Crew chief (seeing mess): Shit! I am NOT cleaning that up! HAZMAT!!!!
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to compare here (Amazon AWS?). Amazon S3 is not the equivalent of Backblaze. Amazon Glacier is.
At lowest prices*:
Glacier: $0.01/GB/month -- $10 per TB per month
S3 Standard: $0.125/GB/month -- $125 per TB per month
S3 Reduced Redundancy: $0.093/GB/month $93 per TB per month
Where are you getting $30 for "AWS"?
*Prices exclude data transfer charges, which shouldn't apply to most long-term backup situations
I haven't done double-blind testing, and should state that my experience does compare nasty tasteless supermarket produce to home-grown, organic (actual, not certified), ripe, and fresh-picked vegetables. Not a fair comparison, by any measure.
Indeed, extraordinarily unfair. And also quite valid.
I am too lazy to pull up the research, but I have seen some that basically says: ripeness and time between picking and consumption matter. Organic? Not nearly as much. So an organic apple from South Africa, picked well before it was ready and ripened on a cargo ship, is going to be far less nutritious or tasty than a locally grown factory farm apple, harvested when ripe and eaten immediately.
They are in decline and they are no longer a superpower. But... Russia has nukes, is able to field an army, and can be VERY aggressive. Not quite a chihuahua, perhaps more like a bulldog amongst wolfhounds. More time needs to pass for them to fade enough to feel confident that they are chihuahuas on the world stage.
I don't know dog breeds all that well, but Russia can only "field an army" to a certain degree. They can certainly deploy enough troops to invade a small neighbor for a short period of time. They are almost certainly incapable of conducting large-scale operations across the globe. Their military is underpaid, undertrained, ill-equipped, and has low morale... I wouldn't put too much stock in their success against a major power. Given the competition, Russia is unlikely to become a regional hegemon in the next several decades. Without their UNSC veto and nuclear arsenal, Russia would be rather weak.
You're drinking the apple koolaid. I'm looking at the Apple store right now, they charge $2500 for the cheapest Mac Pro. Here's a breakdown of the specs with the equivalent prices on newegg:
... ...That's a difference of $1518. Why does their workstation cost so much?
Apple Magic Mouse - generic cheapo mouse, $10 on newegg
Certainly not a $1500 difference, but it is worth nothing that the Magic Mouse isn't some generic mouse. It's basically a trackpad on the back of a [tiny] mouse. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent product available for PCs, but it would cost more than $10 if it was done well. Personally, I thought the magic mouse was cool tech but way too small for my hands. I gave it to my niece. Your comparison probably also misses a few key features: thunderbolt?, FireWire 800, warranty on assembed product, etc. The Mac Pro is definitely the worst offender, though--and overpriced. They haven't given the hardware a proper update and seem dead set on screwing that market segment.
The iMac would probably be a more fair comparison. I bought one a couple years ago because my old MBP held up so much better than my Dell laptops (last one literally blew up). I looked for similar all-in-one systems and couldn't find a single competitor that was well done. Some were just ugly as shit, others had terrible specs and reviews. In the end, I got what I wanted from the only company producing a system to fill this niche. Upgrading my own RAM also saved me from being gouged $600 or somesuch by Apple.
Depending on where you're located, the payback for a roof full of solar panels will likely be somewhere between 5-8 years, if energy prices don't go up. Panels are typically coming in with 20 or 25 year warranties, and the switchgear is like any other power switching equipment (keep the filters clean and the mice out). Plus then you can advertise that you're green, if you want. Isolating yourself from rising energy costs, even in part, may be attractive.
Keep in mind power requirements and local/state laws. Machine shops usually require three-phase power. Transformers that support that will cost extra. Additionally, net metering and similar issues are subject to legislation. In some states solar currently makes sense for an environment like this, but not in others... and there are definitely no long-term guarantees.
Of course "Japan as a whole" doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. The majority of the US presence in "Japan" is actually on the islands of Okinawa. Ten Percent of the land in Okinawa is US military bases. Understand what that means. TEN PERCENT of an island nation is taken up by a foreign military power, and islands aren't known for having a lot of spare land.
I am quite aware of the size and impact of American bases on Okinawa (estimates I saw were closer to 20% of Okinawa main island, 10% of the prefecture). There are also problems with various illicit activities, bars, drunk drivers, and occasional issues with rapes, molestation, and plenty of others. The rates really aren't very high considering the large number of personnel stationed there, but Okinawans understandably get quite upset about it.
However, the situation is far more complicated than that. Many Okinawans benefit from the US Dollars pouring in. Landlords, restaurant owners/employees, shops, service providers, auto dealers, etc. all benefit from the US presence. Real estate developers and tourism operators believe they will benefit from an American departure/relocation. I don't have current polling data, but I suspect a low percentage feels very strongly either way and that the majority follows news coverage (Marine punches a baby, everyone wants US gone... a year later 20% want US gone). Most of the protests in Okinawa feature a small crowd posing in front of a base for 2 minutes for a photo opp, after which the crowd returns to work (some of them on base). A few also try to troll Americans into hitting them. This happened to a friend of mine, who was smart enough to notice the other "activist" filming.
Given Okinawa's economy and resources, I doubt they would actually be able to replace all of the lost US revenue. What they really seem to want is a better deal: either reduced US impact on Okinawa or greater compensation for the burden. Most seem to understand the role the US plays in the region and want that to continue to benefit Japan.
Okinawa has wanted the American bases gone or reduced for a long time. Mainland Japan doesn't give a shit about Okinawa. But because Okinawa legally became a province of Japan after WWII, people say "Japan doesn't mind the US military presence." Well, nice, that's an accurate statement. But the people of Okinawa who have to put up with our military certainly do mind.
I absolutely agree that many Okinawans take exception to that burden (with some caveats). However, my reply was to jamstar7's complaint that the bases were built for occupation, with the implication that they are no longer needed (or serve some sort of imperial purpose?). My response, which I believe you would agree with, was an attempt to show that [West] Germany and Japan rather wanted US bases during the Cold War... and also that Japan (nationally) continues to desire a strong US military presence. Although the domestic politics certainly don't favor the Okinawans, who deserve more than they get from the deal.
How is it that the government can refuse to grant a security clearance based on sexual orientation under the notion that it could be used to blackmail someone, but allow the use of software with a proven and highly publicized record of leaking information? What's more, people with security clearances are subjected to intense scrutiny -- their supervisors know about every little aspect of their lives, including that little dimple on the inside of your right thigh, yet routinely employ software that is essentially a big black box -- nobody knows how or why it works.
I am not sure where you got this information, but it is incorrect. I am not aware of any agency discriminating on hetero/homosexual orientation. Some sexual activities (bestiality, child molestation, pandering/prostitution) may become factors. Somebody may still care about orientation, but these days, I highly doubt it. The original NSA decision on orientation revolved around whether the person was out of the closet. If they were out, they couldn't be blackmailed. If they were in the closet, they could be. That is probably still the case, esp. if someone has a straight facade and is cheating on their spouse.
Supervisors don't know about every aspect of their employees' lives. The security people, however, may know quite a bit. It really depends on where the person works, their position, etc.
My big question, then, is whether the local farmers think global warming is some sort of communist plot. Do they think the climate is in the process of permanently shifting, or do they just think this is a bad year?
The bases in Germany, Italy, and Japan were installed after WW2 for the occupation. Last I heard, the occupation is long over, but the bases remain.
I am sure you will recall that history didn't end at WW2. Germany rather wanted American bases there for some reason. I think it had something to do with a hostile neighbor?
Okinawa has some issues with American bases (mainly the USMC and noise concerns), but Japan as a whole doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. Japan gets to benefit from a strong military while spending very little on their own. Between PRC, DPRK, and all the other volatility in the region, pretty much everyone wants the public good only the US is willing to pay to provide.
I think this level of understanding of foreign policy matters in countries like Pakistan exceeds most of the staff of both the Defense and State Depts.
Since we're attacking people today, I can understand why you wouldn't know your head from your ass with your head so far up your ass.
State and Defense are both filled to the brim with people who understand foreign affairs. Unless your last name is Waltz, there's a pretty good chance they understand it a hell of a lot better than you do. Even the average grunt in Afghanistan has a good understanding of the situation.
If you want to see complete ignorance of foreign cultures, I recommend the following: mainstream media coverage, Fox News, Mitt Romney 2.0, and the Tea Party. To cure your own ignorance, talk to a few foreign service officers and a few vets.