You assume businesses care one bit about quality and customer satisfaction...
I think 100% of web-advertising businesses would gladly trade 1 well-informed friendly customer going home with a satisfied feeling for 2 vegetative idiots buying whatever the idiot-box tells them to...
whenever i encounter these javascript underlining thing adds, i will stop at NOTHING untill all relevant hosts have been included in my hosts file, pointing to good ol 127.0.0.1
it usually takes a few minutes/tries to find all relevant add-servers in the resources list for a web-page, but i find it is worth the effort
If the US decided to use nukes against a non-nuclear enemy, say a hypothetical invasion of Iran, the entire world would be up in protest, and in certain cases a retaliation from china/russia might even be possible. In 1946, the US had nothing to fear from anyone when nuking japan. (and let's be honest, nuclear weapons back then were less well understood, and far less powerfull then today)
And yeah, tactical nukes are pointless, as soon as you nuke a tank batallion, expect a larger nuke on your forward air bases, giving you no option but to nuke enemy HQ, escalating the entire situation into a full-scale nuclear exchange. Once the nuke is out of the box (even if only a 1 kiloton), you have proved to be willing to deploy nukes, the enemy may just as well go full force pre-emptive strike on you before they get hit any further
my point wasnt that the US doesnt need this size arsenal, my point is that a potential adversary doesnt need to have USSR level stockpiles to be considered MAD-dangerous. If north korea gets ten sufficiently powerfull nukes (say big enough to take out the center of a major city), and has the potential to deliver them somewhat accurately, that effectively shields them from becomming a target themselves.
But yeah, 10 nukes grand total doesnt make for a fool proof deterrent, but if you can convince the other side you can use them at will.. in 99% of the cases that will be enough
i think the parent was asking for existing devices
except for numerous fictional devices, i also have never heard of a device capable of destroying the planet in a single blast. Wikipedia states that there is no theoretical upper limit to Fusion device yield, so one could make a thermonuclear device with giga-tons of yield, burried somewhere (it would be HUGE, not transportable in any way), but i wonder what kind of yield would be needed to actually destroy the planet
Just a few: - black-hole creation technology (might or might not work) - matter-antimatter devices - the ability to create very-very large volumes of a persistent deadly chemical agent
none of these are very realistic though, but still
when you have allies you want to protect right next to the threat, that long range capability isnt needed.
Nortk korea could nuke south korea with something like a scud (provided they miniaturize their nukes enough), hell, they could flatten seoul with conventional artillery before the US could even begin to prepare a counter-move to that. The reason they dont is because they know what will happen if they do.
Nope: because to achieve even a fraction of the threat that the Soviet Union once posed would be far too costly.
Why would you need that many nukes? As long as no-one posesses an effective anti-ICBM device, even 10 nukes of sufficient yield (pure fission device go up to 500 killoton, well enough to wipe out a city) will be enough to deter anyone from attacking. No US president is gonna say "Well, we kind of want to attack $country, and since they can only nuke washington, new york, LA, san francisco, chicago, miami, san diego, detroit, denver and Vegas instead of EVERY city, we'll go ahead and nuke their sorry asses"
You dont need total destruction for MAD to work, hell, you dont even need hydrogen-bombs for that
yes, if weight is an issue then the MBA wins, no doubt.
I personally think thought that with any modern 11,6 the weight wont be the limiting factor for my use. My current laptop weighs in at slightly over 2kg, and i lugged that thing half way around the world.
check out the dell m101z, for 500 bucks you have an 11,6 screen, a decent size hdd (which you can replace with an ssd if you want) and an AMD dual core CULV CPU
Granted, the cpu probably is slightly lower then the intel CULV in this new apple, but there is no way the apple is twice as good in terms of specs
any platform is an unattractive platform for that.
HTML5/CSS/JS does not get ANY competition from java, anyone doing web-stuff with applets has been taken out by the shed and shot over a decade ago. The real competitor for HTML5 et al is Flash, which is Apple's real windmill...
It is plausible enough that oracle won't, or will take so much time / bungle some stuff so bad that java on mac essentially becomes a no-no long enough to drive everyone to objective-C. Given the fact that java these days is mostly about server-side stuff and (the language anyway) android, i dont see any reason why oracle would hurry with an OS X JVM (they mostly care about their own server stack anyway, and OS X isnt anywhere near significant in server-world)
FYI Google doesn't care for Java, so stop sucking Google's dick.
Google runs TONS of their shit on java, heaps of their server-side apps are completely running in java. If any mega-corp cares about java (aside from oracle themselves), it would be google
yeah, i know my current scheme is a bit vulnerable, but for now it will do. When my current server is filled up i'll start building a propper new server, with some sort of RAID or whatever.
I do care for my disks pretty well though, they spend their days in a well ventilated case with good dust filters and all, i havent had a disk go bad on me ever..
My MSI laptop with Ati x200 (well, it says x1150 on the tin, but that is a rebadged x200) has been running linux since 2007 (when i got it actually). Compiz worked flawlessly with 3d cube nonsense and all in the then recent ubuntu (dont remember if it wat 7.04 or 7.10)
Yes, Ati drivers for linux were hell back in 2004 with my 9600pro, but the last few years it all works
Well, i dont have my drives in RAID, it is just some movies and tv shows, so it is just a bunch of disks mounted into a single share folder, so i am not forced to use same size disks. It is just that from the beginning up to last week (when i filled up the machine with its final 2 disks), the most attractive drives have been 1.5 TBs
Slashdot Mirror
my girlfriends 3gs (running iOS 4.x) had the same bug this morning.
Fortunately, my $99 android phone woke us up at the right time
You assume businesses care one bit about quality and customer satisfaction...
I think 100% of web-advertising businesses would gladly trade 1 well-informed friendly customer going home with a satisfied feeling for 2 vegetative idiots buying whatever the idiot-box tells them to...
whenever i encounter these javascript underlining thing adds, i will stop at NOTHING untill all relevant hosts have been included in my hosts file, pointing to good ol 127.0.0.1
it usually takes a few minutes/tries to find all relevant add-servers in the resources list for a web-page, but i find it is worth the effort
No amount of free bandwidth will solve the problem that i do NOT want to be forced to watch an ad, and have a pop-quiz about it.
Hell, the interruption of ads on TV is enough to stop me from watching TV as it is, and then i dont have to pay attention
how is both this and my sibling a troll? insightfull is more like it
i guess there are some hippies with mod point around (and i dont care, i have karma to burn, this is when all that insightfullness finally pays off)
1946 was entirely different from now.
If the US decided to use nukes against a non-nuclear enemy, say a hypothetical invasion of Iran, the entire world would be up in protest, and in certain cases a retaliation from china/russia might even be possible. In 1946, the US had nothing to fear from anyone when nuking japan. (and let's be honest, nuclear weapons back then were less well understood, and far less powerfull then today)
And yeah, tactical nukes are pointless, as soon as you nuke a tank batallion, expect a larger nuke on your forward air bases, giving you no option but to nuke enemy HQ, escalating the entire situation into a full-scale nuclear exchange. Once the nuke is out of the box (even if only a 1 kiloton), you have proved to be willing to deploy nukes, the enemy may just as well go full force pre-emptive strike on you before they get hit any further
judging by recent developments, that would be a good thing
Command And Conquer: Farmville wars
Fifarmville
Medal of Honour, assault at farmville
I'll take that over the tripe that EA has been spewing lately
my point wasnt that the US doesnt need this size arsenal, my point is that a potential adversary doesnt need to have USSR level stockpiles to be considered MAD-dangerous. If north korea gets ten sufficiently powerfull nukes (say big enough to take out the center of a major city), and has the potential to deliver them somewhat accurately, that effectively shields them from becomming a target themselves.
But yeah, 10 nukes grand total doesnt make for a fool proof deterrent, but if you can convince the other side you can use them at will.. in 99% of the cases that will be enough
The Tzar Bomba was also a down-rated version of the original design, which was specified at 100 MT
Still not enough to destroy the planet (or all life on it) though
i think the parent was asking for existing devices
except for numerous fictional devices, i also have never heard of a device capable of destroying the planet in a single blast. Wikipedia states that there is no theoretical upper limit to Fusion device yield, so one could make a thermonuclear device with giga-tons of yield, burried somewhere (it would be HUGE, not transportable in any way), but i wonder what kind of yield would be needed to actually destroy the planet
Can you think of something that I missed?
Just a few:
- black-hole creation technology (might or might not work)
- matter-antimatter devices
- the ability to create very-very large volumes of a persistent deadly chemical agent
none of these are very realistic though, but still
when you have allies you want to protect right next to the threat, that long range capability isnt needed.
Nortk korea could nuke south korea with something like a scud (provided they miniaturize their nukes enough), hell, they could flatten seoul with conventional artillery before the US could even begin to prepare a counter-move to that. The reason they dont is because they know what will happen if they do.
Nope: because to achieve even a fraction of the threat that the Soviet Union once posed would be far too costly.
Why would you need that many nukes? As long as no-one posesses an effective anti-ICBM device, even 10 nukes of sufficient yield (pure fission device go up to 500 killoton, well enough to wipe out a city) will be enough to deter anyone from attacking. No US president is gonna say "Well, we kind of want to attack $country, and since they can only nuke washington, new york, LA, san francisco, chicago, miami, san diego, detroit, denver and Vegas instead of EVERY city, we'll go ahead and nuke their sorry asses"
You dont need total destruction for MAD to work, hell, you dont even need hydrogen-bombs for that
yes, if weight is an issue then the MBA wins, no doubt.
I personally think thought that with any modern 11,6 the weight wont be the limiting factor for my use. My current laptop weighs in at slightly over 2kg, and i lugged that thing half way around the world.
check out the dell m101z, for 500 bucks you have an 11,6 screen, a decent size hdd (which you can replace with an ssd if you want) and an AMD dual core CULV CPU
Granted, the cpu probably is slightly lower then the intel CULV in this new apple, but there is no way the apple is twice as good in terms of specs
any platform is an unattractive platform for that.
HTML5/CSS/JS does not get ANY competition from java, anyone doing web-stuff with applets has been taken out by the shed and shot over a decade ago. The real competitor for HTML5 et al is Flash, which is Apple's real windmill...
tell that to the carpet in my car, lining the floor..
this insightfull?
So now Oracle will develop the JVM for Apple.
It is plausible enough that oracle won't, or will take so much time / bungle some stuff so bad that java on mac essentially becomes a no-no long enough to drive everyone to objective-C. Given the fact that java these days is mostly about server-side stuff and (the language anyway) android, i dont see any reason why oracle would hurry with an OS X JVM (they mostly care about their own server stack anyway, and OS X isnt anywhere near significant in server-world)
FYI Google doesn't care for Java, so stop sucking Google's dick.
Google runs TONS of their shit on java, heaps of their server-side apps are completely running in java. If any mega-corp cares about java (aside from oracle themselves), it would be google
You better hope the guy who starts out with the hammer doesnt figure out this, much simpler, three step program
1) Hit guy offering food for your hammer on his head, with your hammer ...
2)
3) Dinner!!!!!!
i bet if they do that, someone accidentally the whole thing!
The new macbook air, now with 30% more air!!
yeah, i know my current scheme is a bit vulnerable, but for now it will do. When my current server is filled up i'll start building a propper new server, with some sort of RAID or whatever.
I do care for my disks pretty well though, they spend their days in a well ventilated case with good dust filters and all, i havent had a disk go bad on me ever..
well, slap some external plating on this contraption and you are pretty close to the GDI factory, too bad it can't build tanks yet...
My MSI laptop with Ati x200 (well, it says x1150 on the tin, but that is a rebadged x200) has been running linux since 2007 (when i got it actually). Compiz worked flawlessly with 3d cube nonsense and all in the then recent ubuntu (dont remember if it wat 7.04 or 7.10)
Yes, Ati drivers for linux were hell back in 2004 with my 9600pro, but the last few years it all works
Well, i dont have my drives in RAID, it is just some movies and tv shows, so it is just a bunch of disks mounted into a single share folder, so i am not forced to use same size disks. It is just that from the beginning up to last week (when i filled up the machine with its final 2 disks), the most attractive drives have been 1.5 TBs