....They also moved off from computers to typewriters for some highly sensitive documents. If they already knew all that Snowden stole, why would they do that now? Why not earlier?
There's more than one way of looking at that. 1) by moving to typewriter, they were trying to protect their information from the Americans - your theory. or 2) they saw how easy it is for an insider to electronically copy a library of documents and leave the country. Personally, I think 2) is much more plausible based on that Snowden actually revealed. Secure Russian or Chinese communications would not have been a part of normal internet or telephone traffic that the US was monitoring anyway. Another point is it's actually a minor victory if the Russians and Chinese become so paranoid that they go from efficient digital communications to using mechanical typewriters and sheets of carbon to communicate. But I respect your opinion. Absent of additional information, I think we both have valid points.
I think it's highly probable that both Russia and China already had much of what Snowden took with him on his laptop. If there was any intelligence value for those countries, it would have been to validate their sources. On the other hand, the propaganda value was limited at best. Both countries are not exactly ruled by law and they aggressively suppress dissent. On the one hand, they can use Snowden as an example of American double speak, but OTOH they don't want their own citizens to be getting the same ideas.
If it floats, it will be neutral because it will displace as much water equal to its own mass. If it sinks, it will displace less water than equal to its own mass.
Only the mass of the object matters if it's inside of the hull of the ship. Shipping 1 ton of feathers is the same as shipping 1 ton of led, at least as far as displacement is concerned.
So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?
Tomorrow, you will be one day older than today. Enough tomorrows and your eyesight will probably fade to the point where text on a computer monitor appears fuzzy. By making the font fuzzy today, Apple is providing their users with a taste of tomorrow. Next, Apple will probably shrink the keyboard to the point that accuracy suffers, as it inevitably does with old age.
...the very essence of an enterprise (any enterprise) is that it is a bundle of labour and capital whose essential structure and identity is independent of and more persistent than the labour it employs. The identity behind its labour component is no more important than the identity of its capital component...
Mr. Patel was misquoted in the header, FTA he did not explicitly say "Turnover in Engineering No Problem", but let's assume he did say so in so many words. He is about 33% correct, all engineers are replaceable, and that is the main reason good engineers always document their work. But the question that is often ignored by business school 101-types is how much money and time does it take to replace a competent engineer? Can your enterprise afford the Project disruption and late time-to-market? Will your development still be relevant by the time it finally launches?
You argue that "capital" and "labor" are essentially equal to the identity of an enterprise. In a lot of enterprises that may be true, where either the labor is totally unskilled (light-bulb turners) and requires no training, or the labor is "certified and trained" and perform a set of narrowly-defined tasks, e.g. truck drivers, shipping, railroad engineers, airline pilots, etc. In product development, this ideal model breaks down. Engineering has no standardised training, and every situation or development situation is a unique learning experience, both for the enterprise and for the labor. That's why we have "project management" and development in the first place. History is full of examples of enterprises that made the mistake of treating their engineers as fungible, interchangeable assets. Products started coming out "a day late and a dollar short". Eventually they reorganised, split, made a splash with some big announcements and then disappeared.
As an added bonus, they can start having babies when they're 45!
Having children early and starting a career at the same time can be very rough, but there's a lot to be said for still having a life to look forward to once they're grown and out of the house. Added bonus is you'll probably be around long enough to enjoy grandparenthood and possibly even great-grandparenthood.
My Herrschaft, German really is such a Biedermeier language and and doesn't fit with the current Zeitgeist. It has a gestalt that is more suited for 19th century expression. After the English-language Blitzkrieg that has taken over most pop culture, any german-language expression is seen as just a lot of flak from a karabiner. I guess we'll have to replace classical german terms such as Herz, Eigen-vector, E-Modul, with a more english ideal; cycles-per-second (so much for brevity). But German is such a beautiful language an sich. I really had my Aha-Erlebnis when I realised that german expressions were no longer associated with übermenschen traveling in U-Boots or flying in Luftwaffe planes. Now the whole world can enjoy rooting for German Wunderkinder on the national team, and at home recreate the best parts playing foosball. Maybe the French feel a bit of Schadenfreude at seeing the significant influence of german Gedanken in the english language. Maybe someday they'll be a putsch and French will take over, but for now, I'm counting on a german-language encore.
I haven't been following this thread too closely, so maybe repeated somewhere else. I think we agree basically on following the law. What I was trying to say is for most people, downloading an occasional mp3 is the moral equivalent to driving 60 in a 55 mph zone. The problem is when the recording industry tries to turn a minor infraction of the law into a federal crime, on par with armed bank robbery. Or wants to treat all minor offenders the same as the few who actually run a warez site.
When I was in high school, my friends and I all built our music collections by dubbing each others cassette tapes. When I joined the military later on, I don't think anybody would have cared that I had a box of dubbed Def Leppard tapes, other than as an indication of poor taste in music.
You can drop the "upper middle class" part, as this is about following the law. Full stop. The FBI and especially the intelligence services will tell you that they very much try to hire people who follow the law and other rules.
So they should never hire anyone who has ever driven faster than the legal speed limit? (55 mph in the not-so-olden days) People bend the rules all the time and usually aren't even aware they are until they're caught. That's normal human behavior. There are so many Federal criminal laws, nobody's even sure how many there are. We probably all violate at least one federal law in the course of a normal day.
On the other hand, bad former-military people were cogs in a machine, and don't see past their prescribed task at all.
It all depends. A 23 year-old veteran who did his four years and got out is more of a citizen soldier than a cog in a machine. Most are highly-motivated and trainable. They show up to work on time and do what they are supposed to do. The Cogs tend to be the Colonels and Generals who get out and use their military rolodex to make a living as lobbyists or consultants. You'll find those types at most major defense contractors, but they won't be working in IT.
And that's where most of the mishaps originated, misuse of the F-104 in the ground attack role. The F-104 actually had a good safety record when it was operated as intended: a high-altitude, VFR interceptor. The Italians for example had a good safety record. The Germans, not so much.
.... It uses less fuel and has more advanced weapons. That is about it.
It's all about the weapons and the sensors to cue those weapons. The airframe is secondary. It just gets the weapons to where they need to be to be launched.
The F-104 had the pilot's eyeballs as the long-range sensor, and a primative gun radar. The weapons were the M61 and AIM-9. The F-35 has an advanced radar system, data-link, probably other sensors we don't know about. Weapons would be the AIM-120, AIM-9, JDAM, and other weapons we probably don't know about. The only debate is those sensors and weapons could have been integrated into a less expensive, more conventional airframe.
MacOS was horrible, and so was DOS and Windows 3.x....Everyone in the real world was going full steam ahead with Unix (Unix wars started around then).
Nope, UNIX was never a factor on the desktop, even ca. 1991. If you had the $$$ to afford a UNIX workstation, you often also had a DOS/Win PC to get real work done. Mac OS wasn't half bad, especially version 6 and earlier. It was when they tried to tack on all the extra stuff in version 7 that it started to fail under its own weight. I feel old now...at my first job I had on my desk, a Mac running version System 6 and a DEC VAX terminal. I think Clinton had just been sworn in.
An old UNIX joke, "What does work do when it arrives at a work station? The same thing a train does when it arrives at a train station."
The article calls a lot of sound aircraft designs failures because they were employed improperly (wrong tactics) or the weapons they were designed to carry weren't ready by the time the war started. An example, the TBD-1 losses at Midway were the result of attacking Japanese battle ships without fighter escorts and by the outdated torpedoes that couldn't be dropped at high speed without breaking up when hitting the water. The Grumman TBF-1 Avenger was "successful" because by the time it entered service, more modern torpedoes were available and military planners knew that torpedo bombers needed fighter escort.
The parallel in Europe is in 1939, both the British and the Germans tried sending daylight bombers without fighter escort into battle. Every time, they suffered unacceptable losses. The point is in 1939 to 1940, aerial warfare was so new that most military planners did not know how to properly employ their air forces, or what the capabilities and limitations of their aircraft were. At the time, Bomber Generals saw fighter production as competition for resources, i.e. aircraft. The Bomber people at the time believed Stanley Baldwin's quote from 1932, "the bomber will always get through."
Slashdot Mirror
....They also moved off from computers to typewriters for some highly sensitive documents. If they already knew all that Snowden stole, why would they do that now? Why not earlier?
There's more than one way of looking at that. 1) by moving to typewriter, they were trying to protect their information from the Americans - your theory. or 2) they saw how easy it is for an insider to electronically copy a library of documents and leave the country. Personally, I think 2) is much more plausible based on that Snowden actually revealed. Secure Russian or Chinese communications would not have been a part of normal internet or telephone traffic that the US was monitoring anyway. Another point is it's actually a minor victory if the Russians and Chinese become so paranoid that they go from efficient digital communications to using mechanical typewriters and sheets of carbon to communicate. But I respect your opinion. Absent of additional information, I think we both have valid points.
Russia thinks so. China does too.
Can you be a patriot to more than one country?
I think it's highly probable that both Russia and China already had much of what Snowden took with him on his laptop. If there was any intelligence value for those countries, it would have been to validate their sources. On the other hand, the propaganda value was limited at best. Both countries are not exactly ruled by law and they aggressively suppress dissent. On the one hand, they can use Snowden as an example of American double speak, but OTOH they don't want their own citizens to be getting the same ideas.
If it floats, it will be neutral because it will displace as much water equal to its own mass. If it sinks, it will displace less water than equal to its own mass.
Only the mass of the object matters if it's inside of the hull of the ship. Shipping 1 ton of feathers is the same as shipping 1 ton of led, at least as far as displacement is concerned.
So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?
Tomorrow, you will be one day older than today. Enough tomorrows and your eyesight will probably fade to the point where text on a computer monitor appears fuzzy. By making the font fuzzy today, Apple is providing their users with a taste of tomorrow. Next, Apple will probably shrink the keyboard to the point that accuracy suffers, as it inevitably does with old age.
...the very essence of an enterprise (any enterprise) is that it is a bundle of labour and capital whose essential structure and identity is independent of and more persistent than the labour it employs. The identity behind its labour component is no more important than the identity of its capital component...
Mr. Patel was misquoted in the header, FTA he did not explicitly say "Turnover in Engineering No Problem", but let's assume he did say so in so many words. He is about 33% correct, all engineers are replaceable, and that is the main reason good engineers always document their work. But the question that is often ignored by business school 101-types is how much money and time does it take to replace a competent engineer? Can your enterprise afford the Project disruption and late time-to-market? Will your development still be relevant by the time it finally launches?
You argue that "capital" and "labor" are essentially equal to the identity of an enterprise. In a lot of enterprises that may be true, where either the labor is totally unskilled (light-bulb turners) and requires no training, or the labor is "certified and trained" and perform a set of narrowly-defined tasks, e.g. truck drivers, shipping, railroad engineers, airline pilots, etc. In product development, this ideal model breaks down. Engineering has no standardised training, and every situation or development situation is a unique learning experience, both for the enterprise and for the labor. That's why we have "project management" and development in the first place. History is full of examples of enterprises that made the mistake of treating their engineers as fungible, interchangeable assets. Products started coming out "a day late and a dollar short". Eventually they reorganised, split, made a splash with some big announcements and then disappeared.
Yosemite Sam was an angry Hessian.
As an added bonus, they can start having babies when they're 45!
Having children early and starting a career at the same time can be very rough, but there's a lot to be said for still having a life to look forward to once they're grown and out of the house. Added bonus is you'll probably be around long enough to enjoy grandparenthood and possibly even great-grandparenthood.
My Herrschaft, German really is such a Biedermeier language and and doesn't fit with the current Zeitgeist. It has a gestalt that is more suited for 19th century expression. After the English-language Blitzkrieg that has taken over most pop culture, any german-language expression is seen as just a lot of flak from a karabiner. I guess we'll have to replace classical german terms such as Herz, Eigen-vector, E-Modul, with a more english ideal; cycles-per-second (so much for brevity). But German is such a beautiful language an sich. I really had my Aha-Erlebnis when I realised that german expressions were no longer associated with übermenschen traveling in U-Boots or flying in Luftwaffe planes. Now the whole world can enjoy rooting for German Wunderkinder on the national team, and at home recreate the best parts playing foosball. Maybe the French feel a bit of Schadenfreude at seeing the significant influence of german Gedanken in the english language. Maybe someday they'll be a putsch and French will take over, but for now, I'm counting on a german-language encore.
Jobs didn't electrocute animals to show how bad Tesla's AC was.
It's kind of hard to shock an animal with a Pentium II.
I haven't been following this thread too closely, so maybe repeated somewhere else. I think we agree basically on following the law. What I was trying to say is for most people, downloading an occasional mp3 is the moral equivalent to driving 60 in a 55 mph zone. The problem is when the recording industry tries to turn a minor infraction of the law into a federal crime, on par with armed bank robbery. Or wants to treat all minor offenders the same as the few who actually run a warez site.
When I was in high school, my friends and I all built our music collections by dubbing each others cassette tapes. When I joined the military later on, I don't think anybody would have cared that I had a box of dubbed Def Leppard tapes, other than as an indication of poor taste in music.
You can drop the "upper middle class" part, as this is about following the law. Full stop. The FBI and especially the intelligence services will tell you that they very much try to hire people who follow the law and other rules.
So they should never hire anyone who has ever driven faster than the legal speed limit? (55 mph in the not-so-olden days) People bend the rules all the time and usually aren't even aware they are until they're caught. That's normal human behavior. There are so many Federal criminal laws, nobody's even sure how many there are. We probably all violate at least one federal law in the course of a normal day.
On the other hand, bad former-military people were cogs in a machine, and don't see past their prescribed task at all.
It all depends. A 23 year-old veteran who did his four years and got out is more of a citizen soldier than a cog in a machine. Most are highly-motivated and trainable. They show up to work on time and do what they are supposed to do. The Cogs tend to be the Colonels and Generals who get out and use their military rolodex to make a living as lobbyists or consultants. You'll find those types at most major defense contractors, but they won't be working in IT.
... Preferably salvaged from the deck of a wooden sailboat.
For listening to Wagner, it should be salvaged from the deck of the Flying Dutchman. From any other sailing ship, it's just not the same.
...there was a guy who posted instructions on how to make a working AK-47 out of a shovel....
Beating a plowshare into a sword.
So you're saying that if we combine a Bose and a Beats headset, we might actually get hi-fidelity sound?
The F104 wasnt designed for ground attack,...
And that's where most of the mishaps originated, misuse of the F-104 in the ground attack role. The F-104 actually had a good safety record when it was operated as intended: a high-altitude, VFR interceptor. The Italians for example had a good safety record. The Germans, not so much.
.... It uses less fuel and has more advanced weapons. That is about it.
It's all about the weapons and the sensors to cue those weapons. The airframe is secondary. It just gets the weapons to where they need to be to be launched.
The F-104 had the pilot's eyeballs as the long-range sensor, and a primative gun radar. The weapons were the M61 and AIM-9. The F-35 has an advanced radar system, data-link, probably other sensors we don't know about. Weapons would be the AIM-120, AIM-9, JDAM, and other weapons we probably don't know about. The only debate is those sensors and weapons could have been integrated into a less expensive, more conventional airframe.
Maybe they gave everybody the same redemption code. ...!
And the code is 1 - 2 - 3 - 4. Funny, that's the same code on my luggage.
PPC Macs were awful because Apple wouldn't stop wasting time doing Photoshop shootouts with Pentuim II PCs.
MacOS was horrible, and so was DOS and Windows 3.x....Everyone in the real world was going full steam ahead with Unix (Unix wars started around then).
Nope, UNIX was never a factor on the desktop, even ca. 1991. If you had the $$$ to afford a UNIX workstation, you often also had a DOS/Win PC to get real work done. Mac OS wasn't half bad, especially version 6 and earlier. It was when they tried to tack on all the extra stuff in version 7 that it started to fail under its own weight. I feel old now...at my first job I had on my desk, a Mac running version System 6 and a DEC VAX terminal. I think Clinton had just been sworn in.
An old UNIX joke, "What does work do when it arrives at a work station? The same thing a train does when it arrives at a train station."
.... but still there is a question how they would identify the plane.
Seeing how it was a civilian airliner, I would suspect that they couldn't and didn't.
The article calls a lot of sound aircraft designs failures because they were employed improperly (wrong tactics) or the weapons they were designed to carry weren't ready by the time the war started. An example, the TBD-1 losses at Midway were the result of attacking Japanese battle ships without fighter escorts and by the outdated torpedoes that couldn't be dropped at high speed without breaking up when hitting the water. The Grumman TBF-1 Avenger was "successful" because by the time it entered service, more modern torpedoes were available and military planners knew that torpedo bombers needed fighter escort.
The parallel in Europe is in 1939, both the British and the Germans tried sending daylight bombers without fighter escort into battle. Every time, they suffered unacceptable losses. The point is in 1939 to 1940, aerial warfare was so new that most military planners did not know how to properly employ their air forces, or what the capabilities and limitations of their aircraft were. At the time, Bomber Generals saw fighter production as competition for resources, i.e. aircraft. The Bomber people at the time believed Stanley Baldwin's quote from 1932, "the bomber will always get through."
it was as heavy as 14 African elephants
Next time, could you please use car analogy?
Let me get the banjo music going... It's like the relationship between your childhood Tonka truck with an up-armored MIL-SPEC- HMMWV.
What, no AOL CDs????
....(I have a tape recorded in 1951 and it still plays OK) ....
Just curious, is that a 1/4" tape?