Almost as if US didn't have far more front companies, students in exchange programs and "N"GOs. for stealing from other nations. This is a norm, and intelligence war for tech has been ongoing for centuries at the very least.
Wait what? My shitty 350€ HP "netbook APU with a notebook form factor, but I can play startcraft for almost 3 hours on a 15 inch screen on battery" lappy has one. A very good one at that. As did every single other notebook I looked at when I was picking one for myself about two months ago.
Where on earth did you find a major brand laptop without a multitouch track/touchpad?
With half life on the most radiactive isotopes being few seconds to a few years, it's not really all that radioactive anymore. That's the good thing about radioactive waste - it destroys itself over time.
Considering that there is no standard and that there is a myriad of manufacturers, it would be an enormous task to get them to coordinate on such programming. Without such coordination, QoS would be useless as it would be single manufacturer only for each QoS model.
Any plane with hardpoints is capable of "launching precision ground attacks" as other planes can guide them. F-22 however does not have a dedicated ground attack suite to perform such tasks.
Most of the countries US went to war with this century had planes. Some were good enough to kill a 4th generation multirole fighter-bomber craft. But modus operandi of such wars is to use 5th generation stealth bombers and cruise missiles to destroy runways, and important AA radar and missile sites, after which rest of the planes come in.
And if you're talking about someone who actually has 4th generation air superiority fighters and up, no, US will not go to war with them because there is no way it could ever win such a war. The only outcome of such a war is strategic nuclear conflagration, likely followed by biological "doomsday" strikes that will wipe out most of humanity. Fighter plane is about as useful in such a war as a musket.
It's not the cost that stops deployment, it's the lack of need of deployment. F-22 is a fighter plane, not a multirole fighter/attack plane which is what is needed in modern world.
That's the thing, Nokia is for all bits and purposes their "first phone OEM". But it will likely need to be propped financially and soon, and folks who own Nokia will likely want to kick the loss leader out and keep the profitable parts in. Their smart phone division is in utter tatters after loosing Meego team completely, shutting down Symbian and WP7 not selling nearly enough to compensate for symbian phase-out. At the same time the basic phones are still growing in sale numbers, post stable profits and actually improve the world (they do programs like remote medical care/obstetrics in remote villages of poor third world countries on their feature phones for example).
Microsoft very obviously lacks a proper distribution chain in phone market, like it has established with OEMs in PC market. Nokia Mobile Phones unit has the best distribution chain in the world when in comes to mobile phones, hands down.
Add to that the world class logistics (for example, apple can't make ipad3 with different 4g unit for markets outside US, nokia can deliver customized versions of almost every phone in its already huge catalogue to each country or even region of a country) and you get the reason why microsoft, a company desperate for repeating its windows success on emerging smart phones and tablets market worldwide would be ready to do another xbox.
Actually, considering that at least CIA uses blackmail as a tool, it most certainly has child porn on its servers. It would be extremely stupid not to, when you can blackmail quite a few people with that.
Last line implies that more resources per person were present after the war then before. This is false, as for example most of metals were completely strip mined so that there was not only less per person, there was almost NONE left.
This theory assumes infinite resources. Reality is a polar opposite, as European nations discovered after WW2. The continent was literally plundered of natural resources that were strip-mined to fuel war machines.
The child will simply socially engineer his parents (tell them to let him "fix their computer"). He won't bother "breaking" that "professional electronic signature" because he doesn't have to.
I never did. And I was a pretty badly behaved kid in school (top grades in math, top grades in P.E., bottom grades in "behaviour").
I always got my mom's or dad's signature when I got a bad write-up that required my parents signature. I guess I was raised better then most in terms of respecting my elders.
Perhaps I should re-word my statement for clarity:
1. I believe that searching for cure for elusive fraction of percent is of far less importance then that of high double digits. ("unspecified pollution" vs known genetic issues caused mostly by societal shifts). The way you worded your question is simply too narrow: "Focusing on this fly on the wall, do you think that it's a factor to the nasty smell in the room?" It probably is. But there's still that elephant defecating in the room! 2. Something you misunderstood - I'm referring to the fact that trying to understand the expression of genome as traits is not dissimilar to trying to reverse engineer a program written in high level language with multiple levels of abstraction by looking at the binary code with no prior knowledge of the language used. It's a herculean task and that is simply not a good approach to the problem. Approach through studying traits and their effects, and correlating these has been far more successful in treating hereditary diseases, morphology and passing of traits in general (perhaps the best example here is advanced domesticated cattle and booming modern agriculture). The problem here is the value of individuality in modern society, so we see that preventing mothers who have significant risk of passing severe hereditary conditions to their children from either having children, or at least incentivise them to have children earlier is not societally acceptable. At the same time we do outlaw sexual relations between relatives deemed "too close" in spite of their offspring being exposed to largely similar risks. Essentially we're going down the path of least resistance, the search for magic pill to cure the fractions of percent caused by potential environmental issues, while purposefully ignoring the societally harder, but much more effective treatments, such as imposing limits on fertility treatments, and pushing to get women to have children in their twenties and at latest early thirties (in this regard the push needs to come from both sides, to reduce both too early and too late motherhood).
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of actual biology tech is dated. It's been a while since I rubbed shoulders with people doing research in the field in university, and while the hereditary traits, evolution and human psychology are a long term hobby of mine, genetic biology is currently in breakthrough phase of development and any data is outdated in less then five years. That said, only a fool imagines that seeing the code gets him a picture of how the program works. It's the pit into which many of the best bioresearchers fall nowadays when doing work on complex chemical interactions which are but a small part of the huge whole. We've even recently seen a billion dollar medicine project go down the drain because of making broad assumptions that understanding a part of process chain = understanding the chain. Which it is not.
In conclusion, first of all I do agree that there is a small environmental impact. I strongly disagree that it needs to be focused on, or pretend that it's a big enough of an impact to be a meaningful impact. I also strongly disagree that people are "predisposed to hate medical system". The only thing that "predisposes people to hate" is the approach where medical system is slaved to profit-driven industry that wants the "magic pill" that could be sold to a person for life. Most therapies do not and should not involve medication - they should involve therapists and psychologists who help parents to cope and teach parents how to modify and improve their children's behaviour through proper teaching methods. I.e. psychology rather then drugging. The way we handled what we now call "mild autism" and what we called "bad behaviour" before. Severe cases are another story.
And even more importantly, before trying to dig into the genes to treat a complex set of behavioural issues, it would be nice if researchers stopped to define what autism is. Because at the moment, we are broadening this definition
You do realise that even in one of the most free countries in the world in terms of free speech, USA, FBI has a watch list of people and organisations that threaten overthrowing the government?
Slashdot Mirror
Almost as if US didn't have far more front companies, students in exchange programs and "N"GOs. for stealing from other nations. This is a norm, and intelligence war for tech has been ongoing for centuries at the very least.
Minor obvious correction: starcraft 2.
Wait what? My shitty 350€ HP "netbook APU with a notebook form factor, but I can play startcraft for almost 3 hours on a 15 inch screen on battery" lappy has one. A very good one at that. As did every single other notebook I looked at when I was picking one for myself about two months ago.
Where on earth did you find a major brand laptop without a multitouch track/touchpad?
With half life on the most radiactive isotopes being few seconds to a few years, it's not really all that radioactive anymore. That's the good thing about radioactive waste - it destroys itself over time.
Considering that there is no standard and that there is a myriad of manufacturers, it would be an enormous task to get them to coordinate on such programming. Without such coordination, QoS would be useless as it would be single manufacturer only for each QoS model.
Any plane with hardpoints is capable of "launching precision ground attacks" as other planes can guide them. F-22 however does not have a dedicated ground attack suite to perform such tasks.
F-22 is a pure fighter with no attack capability. F-35 is the multirole F/A craft. Which incidentally is manned and in test flight phase.
Most of the countries US went to war with this century had planes. Some were good enough to kill a 4th generation multirole fighter-bomber craft. But modus operandi of such wars is to use 5th generation stealth bombers and cruise missiles to destroy runways, and important AA radar and missile sites, after which rest of the planes come in.
And if you're talking about someone who actually has 4th generation air superiority fighters and up, no, US will not go to war with them because there is no way it could ever win such a war. The only outcome of such a war is strategic nuclear conflagration, likely followed by biological "doomsday" strikes that will wipe out most of humanity. Fighter plane is about as useful in such a war as a musket.
It's not the cost that stops deployment, it's the lack of need of deployment. F-22 is a fighter plane, not a multirole fighter/attack plane which is what is needed in modern world.
No go. The electricity would flow the wrong way due to distortion field and black out entire continental US and some parts of southern Canada.
That's the thing, Nokia is for all bits and purposes their "first phone OEM". But it will likely need to be propped financially and soon, and folks who own Nokia will likely want to kick the loss leader out and keep the profitable parts in. Their smart phone division is in utter tatters after loosing Meego team completely, shutting down Symbian and WP7 not selling nearly enough to compensate for symbian phase-out. At the same time the basic phones are still growing in sale numbers, post stable profits and actually improve the world (they do programs like remote medical care/obstetrics in remote villages of poor third world countries on their feature phones for example).
Microsoft very obviously lacks a proper distribution chain in phone market, like it has established with OEMs in PC market. Nokia Mobile Phones unit has the best distribution chain in the world when in comes to mobile phones, hands down.
Add to that the world class logistics (for example, apple can't make ipad3 with different 4g unit for markets outside US, nokia can deliver customized versions of almost every phone in its already huge catalogue to each country or even region of a country) and you get the reason why microsoft, a company desperate for repeating its windows success on emerging smart phones and tablets market worldwide would be ready to do another xbox.
To break up the company and buy smartphone division (specifically hardware design one and logistics chain) for pennies on a dollar.
Opel Ampera sells very well in the EU. It's just the US sales that are lagging, probably due to much cheaper gasoline prices.
Actually, considering that at least CIA uses blackmail as a tool, it most certainly has child porn on its servers. It would be extremely stupid not to, when you can blackmail quite a few people with that.
Last line implies that more resources per person were present after the war then before. This is false, as for example most of metals were completely strip mined so that there was not only less per person, there was almost NONE left.
This theory assumes infinite resources. Reality is a polar opposite, as European nations discovered after WW2. The continent was literally plundered of natural resources that were strip-mined to fuel war machines.
http://xkcd.com/538/
The child will simply socially engineer his parents (tell them to let him "fix their computer"). He won't bother "breaking" that "professional electronic signature" because he doesn't have to.
I never did. And I was a pretty badly behaved kid in school (top grades in math, top grades in P.E., bottom grades in "behaviour").
I always got my mom's or dad's signature when I got a bad write-up that required my parents signature. I guess I was raised better then most in terms of respecting my elders.
Essentially none of these are child proof in households where child is far more computer literate then parents.
Thank you for that mental image.
Perhaps I should re-word my statement for clarity:
1. I believe that searching for cure for elusive fraction of percent is of far less importance then that of high double digits. ("unspecified pollution" vs known genetic issues caused mostly by societal shifts). The way you worded your question is simply too narrow: "Focusing on this fly on the wall, do you think that it's a factor to the nasty smell in the room?" It probably is. But there's still that elephant defecating in the room!
2. Something you misunderstood - I'm referring to the fact that trying to understand the expression of genome as traits is not dissimilar to trying to reverse engineer a program written in high level language with multiple levels of abstraction by looking at the binary code with no prior knowledge of the language used. It's a herculean task and that is simply not a good approach to the problem. Approach through studying traits and their effects, and correlating these has been far more successful in treating hereditary diseases, morphology and passing of traits in general (perhaps the best example here is advanced domesticated cattle and booming modern agriculture). The problem here is the value of individuality in modern society, so we see that preventing mothers who have significant risk of passing severe hereditary conditions to their children from either having children, or at least incentivise them to have children earlier is not societally acceptable. At the same time we do outlaw sexual relations between relatives deemed "too close" in spite of their offspring being exposed to largely similar risks. Essentially we're going down the path of least resistance, the search for magic pill to cure the fractions of percent caused by potential environmental issues, while purposefully ignoring the societally harder, but much more effective treatments, such as imposing limits on fertility treatments, and pushing to get women to have children in their twenties and at latest early thirties (in this regard the push needs to come from both sides, to reduce both too early and too late motherhood).
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of actual biology tech is dated. It's been a while since I rubbed shoulders with people doing research in the field in university, and while the hereditary traits, evolution and human psychology are a long term hobby of mine, genetic biology is currently in breakthrough phase of development and any data is outdated in less then five years. That said, only a fool imagines that seeing the code gets him a picture of how the program works. It's the pit into which many of the best bioresearchers fall nowadays when doing work on complex chemical interactions which are but a small part of the huge whole. We've even recently seen a billion dollar medicine project go down the drain because of making broad assumptions that understanding a part of process chain = understanding the chain. Which it is not.
In conclusion, first of all I do agree that there is a small environmental impact. I strongly disagree that it needs to be focused on, or pretend that it's a big enough of an impact to be a meaningful impact. I also strongly disagree that people are "predisposed to hate medical system". The only thing that "predisposes people to hate" is the approach where medical system is slaved to profit-driven industry that wants the "magic pill" that could be sold to a person for life. Most therapies do not and should not involve medication - they should involve therapists and psychologists who help parents to cope and teach parents how to modify and improve their children's behaviour through proper teaching methods. I.e. psychology rather then drugging. The way we handled what we now call "mild autism" and what we called "bad behaviour" before. Severe cases are another story.
And even more importantly, before trying to dig into the genes to treat a complex set of behavioural issues, it would be nice if researchers stopped to define what autism is. Because at the moment, we are broadening this definition
So, the chinese are, by your definition, not human? Because humans have opinions on things. They tend like or dislike them. And so on.
Or is it so unacceptable that they simply have a different culture, with different points of importance for them?
You do realise that even in one of the most free countries in the world in terms of free speech, USA, FBI has a watch list of people and organisations that threaten overthrowing the government?
Different country, different concepts of acceptable censorship.
And I guess we both get to laugh at each other's expense.