Are you sure you didn't accidentally visit froogle.google.com instead of Wolfe's www.froogles.com? When I visit the latter, I see a site that looks right out of the mid '90s. There's absolutely no similarity between the two sites in layout or style.
There is considerable uncertainly in published estimates of the size of the Chinese nunclear weapons stockpile. In the late 1980s it was generally held that China was the world's third-largest nuclear power, possessing a small but credible nuclear deterrent force of 225 to 300 nuclear weapons. Other estimates of the country's production capacities suggested that by the end of 1970 China had fabricated around 200 nuclear weapons, a number which could have increased to 875 by 1980. With an average annual production of 75 nuclear weapons during the 1980s, some estimates suggest that by the mid-1990s the Chinese nuclear industry had produced around 2,000 nuclear weapons for ballistic missiles, bombers, artillery projectiles and landmines.
You seriously believe public estimates of nuclear weapons in a communist country? Get real. And I suppose you believed that North Korea was being truthful to the Clinton Administration about the nuclear framework agreement.
"Who gives a damn whether they rely on the government? I don't want some widow starving to death just because she doesn't have a family to rely on. I don't want someone who lost their retirement at Enron to have to beg for food. I don't think that someone whose family can't afford to support them should suffer. "
Great. Then contribute to charity. It's not the place of government to compensate people for a lack of planning.
"So what's your point? If someone can't afford to go to college without such a scholarship, your arguing about semantics is pointless."
It's great that your ready to spend MY taxes dollars for a new "entitlement" for others. Why don't you start your own scholarship fund for some needy student with your own money. Remember, it's my fscking money, NOT yours.
"Why do you right wingers have to paint everything as "fighting" something? We aren't fighting poverty. We're trying to help individuals who need it -- because we are, with some obvious exceptions, a caring society that doesn't want to see it's members suffer. I've never seen anyone so naive as to believe that the purpose of social welfare is to stamp out poverty."
Why do you assume that "right wingers" don't want to a "caring society?" I just don't think it's government's job to babysit people. You seem to want a nanny-state. Fine. Go to Canada. I donate 10% of my income annually to several charities, so I back up my words with actions. How about you?
"I also never said that I'd take money away from the poor before shutting down corporate welfare. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
Yes you did when you wrote: If you want to cut something, cut the NON-WORKING social welfare system that's already cost over $1 trillion since the inception of Johnson's Great Society. That was your A-number-1 program to cut. You didn't say "right after shutting down corporate welfare." You said, "if you want to cut something", implying that your offering was the best place to make a cut. Don't try to weasel out of it now."
Not trying to weasel out of anything. You inferred that I think cutting social welfare is the first program I'd aim at, even though I never specifically said that. I wasn't about to list each and every government program deserving of the axe, but that's obviously the type of clarity you wanted. Too bad. Life's not exact.
So that's your opinion of a middle-income American who is temporarily accepting unemployment to keep from losing his house? That's what you think of a poor kid from an inner-city neighborhood who accepts a need-based scholarship or a subsidized college loan? That's how you view an elderly widow who accepts a Social Security check?
Unemployment taxes are paid solely by the employer, not by the government. Nice try.
Social Security just encourages people to rely (mistakenly) on the government instead of themselves and family. As to the scholarship example, "need-based" is a relative term.
All this avoids my point about fighting "poverty." Poverty will always exist in the US, by definition.
I also never said that I'd take money away from the poor before shutting down corporate welfare. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
He's using the new definition of Western Europe that now includes Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, and Slovakia. Otherwise he's blowing smoke. What's really going to be interesting is seeing how "Old Europe's" nanny state is going to cope with the demographic changes that are approaching it like a tidal wave.
We've been "fighting" poverty and all sorts of social ills for decades and all we've done is create a dependant class of citizenry who aren't ashamed to suck at the government's teat. That's my definition of "not working." Our forefathers would be embarrassed at how we've come to rely on our government instead of ourselves.
As to corporate welfare, I'm opposed to that as well. But since you're so smart you already knew that when you set up your straw-man argument.
Excluding Social Security and Medic* isn't fair. Plus you need to revisit your opinion of Western European economies. I'm glad the US doesn't have as extensive a social welfare system as Western Europe. We won't be bankrupt like they will as they're populations get older.
If you want to cut something, cut the NON-WORKING social welfare system that's already cost over $1 trillion since the inception of Johnson's Great Society. The system testing to date of the aforementioned is so contrived it isn't even funny.
Me? I'd prefer to keep our robust defense capabilities.
Hmm, that's funny. I manage to turn mine off by holding down the play button for five seconds. The "sleep" mode you're referring to is activated when the unit is paused for more than approximately 5 seconds.
What a troll. "Significant damage?" The insurgents in Iraq have barely damaged the US military. Just because the media is hypersensitive about casualties doesn't mean that we're experiencing substantial losses. If you compare Iraq to other conflicts the US has been engaged in, our losses per day and per capita are incredibly low. Force protection is the key for most of our field commanders. But then again, your last sentence displayed your true grasp of reality in world affairs. Go back to playing Everquest, loser.
You can't compare the penetration capability of HEAT the same way you can something like a sabot round. Chobham armor (used on the M1 series) is designed to specifically defeat HEAT (and HESH) warheads. Now if you hit in the rear compartment or on the roof, you might get a mobility kill. But no chance on the frontal aspect. When you see penetration figures, that's in terms of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) or old fashioned steel. Chobham armor is still classified, but the front glacis of the M1A2SEP is probably proof against 1200-1500mm class warheads.
Armor troops have a saying about infantry operating without armor support: crispy critters.
Infantry troops call armor operating without infantry "rolling coffins."
All vehicles have a "flaw" when dealing with close combat situations. The M1A2 is fortunately for US forces, one of the most protected tanks, especially against HEAT charges like the one employed by the RPG. Tank protection is a matter of choosing your battles. You can't provide 360 degree protection. That's why tanks operate with infantry in urban ops. Take away the infantry, and you'll have situations like Grozny where the Chechen rebels massacred entire divisions due to poor tactics on the part of the Russians.
Geez, what happened, did you forget to equate the US with the Nazis while you were typing? It's a bit of a stretch to link the idea of "corporate entities" to what happened at Abu Ghraib. But wait, I forgot. You're probably one of the folks who thinks that we should try to understand "Why they hate us."
I've gotta disagree. I just received a G5 Xserve that my company had ordered, and it was missing the optional video card. The guy at AppleCare had to fight the other folks to have a card shipped to me. SOP was to have me ship the Xserve back to Apple and they'd ship me an entirely new unit. So, YMMV.
Ahh, another amateur military expert spouts falsehoods. The A-10 is still in use both as the A-10 and the OA-10. It will probably be in use for another 20 years with service life extensions. And just because an aircraft is in the Reserves (or ANG) doesn't mean it isn't used.
The plan to replace the A-10 with the A-16 (F16 variant) died a few years back.
The Bradley was NOT designed to function as a light tank. No one has built a light tank since the early 50's, cuz THEY SUCK. The fact that you recommend the Sheriden shows your lack of a clue when it comes to military affairs. Go get an education (not from the History Channel) and come back when you know the difference between an IFV and an APC.
Why Not? You've obviously never had the joy of experiencing VPC. Go buy a dual 1.25GHZ G4 Powermac. Put in a few GB of RAM, and install VPC. Load up Winxp and you'll be surprised. VPC is a time machine. An expensive way to travel back to an era of dog slow computing.
First nuclear war we won. Japan not having nukes doesn't mean it wasn't a nuclear war, just that it was one sided (the best type of war).
There's no evidence that a nuclear war is unwinnable. A total exchange of all the nukes in existence would be a bit uncomfortable, but there's nothing that proves a war between say India/Pakistan would lead to global nuclear war.
Now you're saying SLBMS are the key, not ICBMS? SLBMS have better survival abilities than ICBMs, but their accuracy (even with Trident D5) is lower than Peacekeeper used to be.
Plus you haven't given any proof other than your opinion that B2s wouldn't be survivable as a retaliatory weapon. Care to try again?
So, what was the last nuclear war started by ICBMs? IIRC, the last two nukes used were air-delivered. Other than that your post makes no sense, but that fits with your sig...
It's a concept called the Triad. ICBMs and SLBMs may not be as invulnerable as we'd like (and eventually stealth will lose its protection). Defense planning also needs to take into account capabilities of potential opponents. Russia still has numerous ICBMs that are designed as first strike weapons. In fact, this one of the few areas Russia is actually purchasing military hardware (as opposed to selling it to the first person whose check clears).
"Five times over?" You should take a look at the cutbacks in the nuclear forces in the last 14 years. Peacekeeper? Gone. Trident boats? Cut dramatically. B1's? Taken out of SIOP. Same with B52s. B2 is our only airborne strategic nuke platform. You can recall a plane, can't recall an ICBM.
Hey, I love using robots too. I just think that getting folks in space is important too. It's too bad the International Space Station is such a drain. The cost of that boondoggle would fund quite a few dozen robotic missions.
The autoloaders still use the same drives, whether they're LTO, DLT, DAT, or DDS. It's the fact that they use multiple drives that enables their speed.
Then you start getting into network saturation unless you're using the autoloaders as direct attached devices. Heck, 100TX Ethernet can only pipe about 8-9MB/s (after accounting for overhead), and gig-E about 10x that. That's why I laugh when people say FC-AL is going away...
But I understand (and agree) with your point. This is a nice device, but not for any datacenter type stuff. If a company has extra money after buying Aeron chairs, put one of these on each desktop.
Hey Troll! How does it feel to be an ignorant troll? For starters, the xraid isn't a server, but (wow) a raid array. And, to make you look even more foolish, the Xserve is now sold with ECC. So, go play with your toy.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you didn't accidentally visit froogle.google.com instead of Wolfe's www.froogles.com? When I visit the latter, I see a site that looks right out of the mid '90s. There's absolutely no similarity between the two sites in layout or style.
I don't know where you get your figures for, but here's a reputable source. (at least as reputable as un-classified material can be) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/nuke .htm/
Here's the meat of the matter:
There is considerable uncertainly in published estimates of the size of the Chinese nunclear weapons stockpile. In the late 1980s it was generally held that China was the world's third-largest nuclear power, possessing a small but credible nuclear deterrent force of 225 to 300 nuclear weapons. Other estimates of the country's production capacities suggested that by the end of 1970 China had fabricated around 200 nuclear weapons, a number which could have increased to 875 by 1980. With an average annual production of 75 nuclear weapons during the 1980s, some estimates suggest that by the mid-1990s the Chinese nuclear industry had produced around 2,000 nuclear weapons for ballistic missiles, bombers, artillery projectiles and landmines.
You seriously believe public estimates of nuclear weapons in a communist country? Get real. And I suppose you believed that North Korea was being truthful to the Clinton Administration about the nuclear framework agreement.
"Who gives a damn whether they rely on the government? I don't want some widow starving to death just because she doesn't have a family to rely on. I don't want someone who lost their retirement at Enron to have to beg for food. I don't think that someone whose family can't afford to support them should suffer.
"
Great. Then contribute to charity. It's not the place of government to compensate people for a lack of planning.
"So what's your point? If someone can't afford to go to college without such a scholarship, your arguing about semantics is pointless."
It's great that your ready to spend MY taxes dollars for a new "entitlement" for others. Why don't you start your own scholarship fund for some needy student with your own money. Remember, it's my fscking money, NOT yours.
"Why do you right wingers have to paint everything as "fighting" something? We aren't fighting poverty. We're trying to help individuals who need it -- because we are, with some obvious exceptions, a caring society that doesn't want to see it's members suffer. I've never seen anyone so naive as to believe that the purpose of social welfare is to stamp out poverty."
Why do you assume that "right wingers" don't want to a "caring society?" I just don't think it's government's job to babysit people. You seem to want a nanny-state. Fine. Go to Canada. I donate 10% of my income annually to several charities, so I back up my words with actions. How about you?
"I also never said that I'd take money away from the poor before shutting down corporate welfare. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
Yes you did when you wrote:
If you want to cut something, cut the NON-WORKING social welfare system that's already cost over $1 trillion since the inception of Johnson's Great Society.
That was your A-number-1 program to cut. You didn't say "right after shutting down corporate welfare." You said, "if you want to cut something", implying that your offering was the best place to make a cut. Don't try to weasel out of it now."
Not trying to weasel out of anything. You inferred that I think cutting social welfare is the first program I'd aim at, even though I never specifically said that. I wasn't about to list each and every government program deserving of the axe, but that's obviously the type of clarity you wanted. Too bad. Life's not exact.
So that's your opinion of a middle-income American who is temporarily accepting unemployment to keep from losing his house? That's what you think of a poor kid from an inner-city neighborhood who accepts a need-based scholarship or a subsidized college loan? That's how you view an elderly widow who accepts a Social Security check? Unemployment taxes are paid solely by the employer, not by the government. Nice try. Social Security just encourages people to rely (mistakenly) on the government instead of themselves and family. As to the scholarship example, "need-based" is a relative term. All this avoids my point about fighting "poverty." Poverty will always exist in the US, by definition. I also never said that I'd take money away from the poor before shutting down corporate welfare. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
He's using the new definition of Western Europe that now includes Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, and Slovakia. Otherwise he's blowing smoke. What's really going to be interesting is seeing how "Old Europe's" nanny state is going to cope with the demographic changes that are approaching it like a tidal wave.
Look up non-sequitur
We've been "fighting" poverty and all sorts of social ills for decades and all we've done is create a dependant class of citizenry who aren't ashamed to suck at the government's teat. That's my definition of "not working." Our forefathers would be embarrassed at how we've come to rely on our government instead of ourselves.
As to corporate welfare, I'm opposed to that as well. But since you're so smart you already knew that when you set up your straw-man argument.
Excluding Social Security and Medic* isn't fair. Plus you need to revisit your opinion of Western European economies. I'm glad the US doesn't have as extensive a social welfare system as Western Europe. We won't be bankrupt like they will as they're populations get older.
If you want to cut something, cut the NON-WORKING social welfare system that's already cost over $1 trillion since the inception of Johnson's Great Society. The system testing to date of the aforementioned is so contrived it isn't even funny.
Me? I'd prefer to keep our robust defense capabilities.
Hmm, that's funny. I manage to turn mine off by holding down the play button for five seconds. The "sleep" mode you're referring to is activated when the unit is paused for more than approximately 5 seconds.
What a troll. "Significant damage?" The insurgents in Iraq have barely damaged the US military. Just because the media is hypersensitive about casualties doesn't mean that we're experiencing substantial losses. If you compare Iraq to other conflicts the US has been engaged in, our losses per day and per capita are incredibly low. Force protection is the key for most of our field commanders. But then again, your last sentence displayed your true grasp of reality in world affairs. Go back to playing Everquest, loser.
You can't compare the penetration capability of HEAT the same way you can something like a sabot round. Chobham armor (used on the M1 series) is designed to specifically defeat HEAT (and HESH) warheads. Now if you hit in the rear compartment or on the roof, you might get a mobility kill. But no chance on the frontal aspect. When you see penetration figures, that's in terms of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) or old fashioned steel. Chobham armor is still classified, but the front glacis of the M1A2SEP is probably proof against 1200-1500mm class warheads.
Armor troops have a saying about infantry operating without armor support: crispy critters.
Infantry troops call armor operating without infantry "rolling coffins."
All vehicles have a "flaw" when dealing with close combat situations. The M1A2 is fortunately for US forces, one of the most protected tanks, especially against HEAT charges like the one employed by the RPG. Tank protection is a matter of choosing your battles. You can't provide 360 degree protection. That's why tanks operate with infantry in urban ops. Take away the infantry, and you'll have situations like Grozny where the Chechen rebels massacred entire divisions due to poor tactics on the part of the Russians.
Geez, what happened, did you forget to equate the US with the Nazis while you were typing? It's a bit of a stretch to link the idea of "corporate entities" to what happened at Abu Ghraib. But wait, I forgot. You're probably one of the folks who thinks that we should try to understand "Why they hate us."
I've gotta disagree. I just received a G5 Xserve that my company had ordered, and it was missing the optional video card. The guy at AppleCare had to fight the other folks to have a card shipped to me. SOP was to have me ship the Xserve back to Apple and they'd ship me an entirely new unit. So, YMMV.
Ahh, another amateur military expert spouts falsehoods. The A-10 is still in use both as the A-10 and the OA-10. It will probably be in use for another 20 years with service life extensions. And just because an aircraft is in the Reserves (or ANG) doesn't mean it isn't used.
The plan to replace the A-10 with the A-16 (F16 variant) died a few years back.
Not the Paladin. The M109A6 (Paladin) is in service right now. You're confusing it with the Crusader system.
The Bradley was NOT designed to function as a light tank. No one has built a light tank since the early 50's, cuz THEY SUCK. The fact that you recommend the Sheriden shows your lack of a clue when it comes to military affairs. Go get an education (not from the History Channel) and come back when you know the difference between an IFV and an APC.
Why Not? You've obviously never had the joy of experiencing VPC. Go buy a dual 1.25GHZ G4 Powermac. Put in a few GB of RAM, and install VPC. Load up Winxp and you'll be surprised. VPC is a time machine. An expensive way to travel back to an era of dog slow computing.
Who says you can't? The iPod has a 32mb buffer to help avoid skips. That translates into about 20 minutes of music depending on your bitrate.
First nuclear war we won. Japan not having nukes doesn't mean it wasn't a nuclear war, just that it was one sided (the best type of war).
There's no evidence that a nuclear war is unwinnable. A total exchange of all the nukes in existence would be a bit uncomfortable, but there's nothing that proves a war between say India/Pakistan would lead to global nuclear war.
Now you're saying SLBMS are the key, not ICBMS? SLBMS have better survival abilities than ICBMs, but their accuracy (even with Trident D5) is lower than Peacekeeper used to be.
Plus you haven't given any proof other than your opinion that B2s wouldn't be survivable as a retaliatory weapon. Care to try again?
So, what was the last nuclear war started by ICBMs? IIRC, the last two nukes used were air-delivered. Other than that your post makes no sense, but that fits with your sig...
It's a concept called the Triad. ICBMs and SLBMs may not be as invulnerable as we'd like (and eventually stealth will lose its protection). Defense planning also needs to take into account capabilities of potential opponents. Russia still has numerous ICBMs that are designed as first strike weapons. In fact, this one of the few areas Russia is actually purchasing military hardware (as opposed to selling it to the first person whose check clears).
"Five times over?" You should take a look at the cutbacks in the nuclear forces in the last 14 years. Peacekeeper? Gone. Trident boats? Cut dramatically. B1's? Taken out of SIOP. Same with B52s. B2 is our only airborne strategic nuke platform. You can recall a plane, can't recall an ICBM.
Hey, I love using robots too. I just think that getting folks in space is important too. It's too bad the International Space Station is such a drain. The cost of that boondoggle would fund quite a few dozen robotic missions.
The autoloaders still use the same drives, whether they're LTO, DLT, DAT, or DDS. It's the fact that they use multiple drives that enables their speed.
Then you start getting into network saturation unless you're using the autoloaders as direct attached devices. Heck, 100TX Ethernet can only pipe about 8-9MB/s (after accounting for overhead), and gig-E about 10x that. That's why I laugh when people say FC-AL is going away...
But I understand (and agree) with your point. This is a nice device, but not for any datacenter type stuff. If a company has extra money after buying Aeron chairs, put one of these on each desktop.
Hey Troll! How does it feel to be an ignorant troll? For starters, the xraid isn't a server, but (wow) a raid array. And, to make you look even more foolish, the Xserve is now sold with ECC. So, go play with your toy.