"I don't remember this level of exclusion even in the bad old days of the USSR."
I do. Maybe not to the letter, but in the general relationship, certainly. The US relationship with China is downright cuddly compared to that.
The US and USSR both did some of the silliest episodes of, at best, tit for tat, and at worst raw spite throughout the cold war.
ASTP changed some of that in the space area when Nixon was using it as part of his general detente with the USSR.
This is pretty much symbolism in its effect on China. They already just go direct to the companies doing the work they're interested in. It's likely to hurt NASA more.
That sounds like a Plato IV terminal. They had that system in front of an orange plasma panel display. It wasn't as high a resolution as this, but the idea was the same. Worked fairly well, too.
So, that implies you vote straight ticket of whatever party you've chosen, if you indeed chose one. Else, you'd have to say you believe in various parties, and it doesn't sound like that's what you're saying.
That party really loves you. It also means that they can take your vote for granted unless you go directly to the "outside the system" option.
Rarely are you going to find a party who you agree with on all issues.
Wouldn't be all that surprised. If it works for star athletes, its gotta work for heavy donors.
When I was an undergrad, there was a guy working on a physics degree who was also playing football (not a starter by any means). Apparently one of the physics advisors took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about physics and give up football. Soon after, one of the coaches took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about football and give up physics.
Yup. Yup. I is jes a brainless repub who's got a physucs degree. huh, huh, huh...
That brainless Rep. Vernon Ehlers must have paid someone for his PhD in physics too. Funny that he was chair of a physics department.
Get a clue.
A: People register/belong to political parties for all sorts of reasons. In some places, the real competition in elections is in the primaries. I live in a small rural highly Republican town. If I were voting in the Democratic primary, I'd have voting input into town politics how?
I've also lived in places where I registered as a Democrat because there was no real competition from the Republicans in the general election.
B: I hang out with a public radio journalist who gets stories taken nationally by NPR at times. He's hardly a conservative and he drops by drudge to keep track of what's on it. It also has links to all sorts of pundits and websites both liberal and conservative.
I'm sure you'll next be lamenting how partisan the politics has become.
They didn't initially use seawater. They still had normal water in the pile and as far as I know hadn't triggered the systems to release boron in it.
These would be tiny little areas that would have an accelerated fission rate over just the fuel sitting in the elements. I'm not even sure you could truly call it a criticality in that it wouldn't be self sustaining. You'd get a momentary spike that would tail off. It's pretty insignificant as far as a source of heat or radiation compared to the decay heat and radiation from the fission products.
Thing is, using a mass spectrometer, you can measure truly tiny amounts of isotopes. You could expect some of the shorter life isotopes from just from occasionaly fissions without criticality. What this study was saying was that the observed ratio of isotopes was such that the particular researcher felt that it would require more than just the expected rate of fissions to get to that ratio.
That really doesn't surprise me. Nor is it terribly significant.
The problem is not what the students did. Nor the exercise the prof assigned them. Both were good.
It's the hype that was applied to it by the university media types.
It's a fine job of fullfilling a design project. It could be useful in some situations. But saying it's "solved" the third world medical sterilization problem is a bit of a reach.
If you can drive up the cost of transport, it's nearly the same as having high tariffs from state to state, or internationally without funning afoul of the WTO.
Be it higher transport taxes or higher fuel cost, it has the same effect.
They'd be taking a risk that the names would leak.
If Al Qaeda killed one or more due to wikileaks sourced info and the US confirmed that some number were, they'd still know they were right at least part of the time.
If you say "no one was killed due to it" they're left with no info on whether they were right or not.
I doubt that the DOD saying people were killed would make them all that much more likely to get their hands on Assange or much change existing perceptions of him. You can bet the press and others (extradition courts, etc.) would want confirmation of that and would just look that much closer at the leaked info and how you knew people were killed etc.
They've already got Manning under lock and key for now and even if he's exonerated, they can largely control him till his term of service is up.
If DOD gives confirmation the wikileaks info is important, it's just that much more embarrassing, especially in front of congressional hearings.
But, as Clint indicated, this is speculation. All of it.
He was asking if there were any reasons they wouldn't do it and I was giving some possible ones.
Regardless of ones position on the war, your analysis is pretty questionable.
"Why would the military hide information that would turn public opinion against wikileaks?"
Because it's likely that they would figure out who a mole or agent was from indirect references in the documents. They might be sure enough to eliminate them, but not completely sure, just like the US was unsure about Bin Laden being in Abbottabad.
If suddenly, the US then says "insert-name" has been killed because of wiki-leaks, they know they were right.
It gets even better. If you follow the link in the original post, lots of the people mentioned are only identified by a code number (like ZU 100024 or such). If you suspected ZU 100024 was the person you killed as a mole, but weren't sure, now you know that anywhere else in those documents you see ZU 100024, you know who that is with high certainty.
"You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation very well"
Apparently he understand better than you seem to understand intel analysis.
As to what Gates said, do you really expect the Secretary of Defense to say publicly "Wow, there's a real blockbuster piece of information in those documents."
The Al Qaeda intel people may have missed a big one when they didn't catch on to this. If the US had missed something like that, we'd be talking about a major intelligence failure.
Even if they weren't sure enough to move Bin Laden, they could have raised his security level, or had an escape plan ready.
Slashdot Mirror
How's that different from some idiot that hasn't bothered to scrape the frost and ice off his windshield?
"I don't remember this level of exclusion even in the bad old days of the USSR."
I do. Maybe not to the letter, but in the general relationship, certainly. The US relationship with China is downright cuddly compared to that.
The US and USSR both did some of the silliest episodes of, at best, tit for tat, and at worst raw spite throughout the cold war.
ASTP changed some of that in the space area when Nixon was using it as part of his general detente with the USSR.
This is pretty much symbolism in its effect on China. They already just go direct to the companies doing the work they're interested in. It's likely to hurt NASA more.
That sounds like a Plato IV terminal. They had that system in front of an orange plasma panel display. It wasn't as high a resolution as this, but the idea was the same. Worked fairly well, too.
Here's a picture of one.
So, that implies you vote straight ticket of whatever party you've chosen, if you indeed chose one. Else, you'd have to say you believe in various parties, and it doesn't sound like that's what you're saying.
That party really loves you. It also means that they can take your vote for granted unless you go directly to the "outside the system" option.
Rarely are you going to find a party who you agree with on all issues.
Wouldn't be all that surprised. If it works for star athletes, its gotta work for heavy donors.
When I was an undergrad, there was a guy working on a physics degree who was also playing football (not a starter by any means). Apparently one of the physics advisors took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about physics and give up football. Soon after, one of the coaches took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about football and give up physics.
Glad to be of service and put your mind at ease.
Astronaut George Taylor: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"
Yup. Yup. I is jes a brainless repub who's got a physucs degree. huh, huh, huh...
That brainless Rep. Vernon Ehlers must have paid someone for his PhD in physics too. Funny that he was chair of a physics department.
Get a clue.
A: People register/belong to political parties for all sorts of reasons. In some places, the real competition in elections is in the primaries. I live in a small rural highly Republican town. If I were voting in the Democratic primary, I'd have voting input into town politics how?
I've also lived in places where I registered as a Democrat because there was no real competition from the Republicans in the general election.
B: I hang out with a public radio journalist who gets stories taken nationally by NPR at times. He's hardly a conservative and he drops by drudge to keep track of what's on it. It also has links to all sorts of pundits and websites both liberal and conservative.
I'm sure you'll next be lamenting how partisan the politics has become.
They didn't initially use seawater. They still had normal water in the pile and as far as I know hadn't triggered the systems to release boron in it.
These would be tiny little areas that would have an accelerated fission rate over just the fuel sitting in the elements. I'm not even sure you could truly call it a criticality in that it wouldn't be self sustaining. You'd get a momentary spike that would tail off. It's pretty insignificant as far as a source of heat or radiation compared to the decay heat and radiation from the fission products.
Thing is, using a mass spectrometer, you can measure truly tiny amounts of isotopes. You could expect some of the shorter life isotopes from just from occasionaly fissions without criticality. What this study was saying was that the observed ratio of isotopes was such that the particular researcher felt that it would require more than just the expected rate of fissions to get to that ratio.
That really doesn't surprise me. Nor is it terribly significant.
If you melt the fuel, you can get localized criticalities.
How is this any different than usual?
This sort of emo food fight has been happening in internet groups for decades (literally. I've watched it on usenet in the 80s).
How can you have an insurrection in a self proclaimed anarchy? It's sort of a contradiction in terms.
The problem is not what the students did. Nor the exercise the prof assigned them. Both were good.
It's the hype that was applied to it by the university media types.
It's a fine job of fullfilling a design project. It could be useful in some situations. But saying it's "solved" the third world medical sterilization problem is a bit of a reach.
They hope the jocks will pick on the wimps rather than the nerds during PE class.
If you can drive up the cost of transport, it's nearly the same as having high tariffs from state to state, or internationally without funning afoul of the WTO.
Be it higher transport taxes or higher fuel cost, it has the same effect.
I dunno.
Lemme check wikipedia...
"we want a car analogy"
Imagine a Dodge Daytona Charger as if it immersed in STP...
So, the families can only claim minimum damages if it's suicide?
Look for even the most aggregious workplace injuries and deaths to be found to be suicide or attempted suicide.
"She committed suicide by walking into the freezer and then padlocking herself in from the outside."
Could be.
They'd be taking a risk that the names would leak.
If Al Qaeda killed one or more due to wikileaks sourced info and the US confirmed that some number were, they'd still know they were right at least part of the time.
If you say "no one was killed due to it" they're left with no info on whether they were right or not.
I doubt that the DOD saying people were killed would make them all that much more likely to get their hands on Assange or much change existing perceptions of him. You can bet the press and others (extradition courts, etc.) would want confirmation of that and would just look that much closer at the leaked info and how you knew people were killed etc.
They've already got Manning under lock and key for now and even if he's exonerated, they can largely control him till his term of service is up.
If DOD gives confirmation the wikileaks info is important, it's just that much more embarrassing, especially in front of congressional hearings.
But, as Clint indicated, this is speculation. All of it.
He was asking if there were any reasons they wouldn't do it and I was giving some possible ones.
I think Faith is some gal he doesn't like. So, he wants her to go to church and then he'll set fire to it.
Most of the people in Al Qaeda won't be sure what info he had.
So, you say you found lots of info even if you found bupkus.
Then, you watch who gets nervous and tries to communicate with others to try to find out what's been compromised.
"They wouldn't send 40 Navy SEALs after "goat porn"."
Depends on how kinky the SEALS are.
If they've been cooling their heals on a submarine or destroyer for too long, I wouldn't take any bets.
Regardless of ones position on the war, your analysis is pretty questionable.
"Why would the military hide information that would turn public opinion against wikileaks?"
Because it's likely that they would figure out who a mole or agent was from indirect references in the documents. They might be sure enough to eliminate them, but not completely sure, just like the US was unsure about Bin Laden being in Abbottabad.
If suddenly, the US then says "insert-name" has been killed because of wiki-leaks, they know they were right.
It gets even better. If you follow the link in the original post, lots of the people mentioned are only identified by a code number (like ZU 100024 or such). If you suspected ZU 100024 was the person you killed as a mole, but weren't sure, now you know that anywhere else in those documents you see ZU 100024, you know who that is with high certainty.
"You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation very well"
Apparently he understand better than you seem to understand intel analysis.
As to what Gates said, do you really expect the Secretary of Defense to say publicly "Wow, there's a real blockbuster piece of information in those documents."
The Al Qaeda intel people may have missed a big one when they didn't catch on to this. If the US had missed something like that, we'd be talking about a major intelligence failure.
Even if they weren't sure enough to move Bin Laden, they could have raised his security level, or had an escape plan ready.
Never underestimate the anesthetic powers of self delusion.
The space aliens that shot it down got to it first.
It just contains all natural arrangements of protons, electrons and neutrons. Not a nasty chemical in sight.
Oops. Wait. Those are subatomic and nuclear particles. Nuclear is an even worse word. Can't have that.