That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.
Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.
The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.
Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.
What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.
And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.
I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.
I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.
But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.
Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"
The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.
But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.
Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.
This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.
Mea culpa. I did not read my own second paragraph. I meant to (and remembered writing) a point to the effect that the carrier does exert control, and that discretion or lack of concern is *certainly* part of their final product. That is implied (but not explicitly stated) in my original comment where I note that I will leave and no longer patronize a site with popups or any ad that makes noise unprompted.
And of course, as I *do* state in the second paragraph, some scammers will get annoying ads that violate the site's rules or are criminal in intent now and then, even with a genuine effort on the part of the carrier. Thus the occasional prominent note similar to "Sorry about the autoplay video ads; I'm working to eliminate them with my ad service." So long as it is handled promptly and in good faith, I have no problem, any more than a health hazard being handled at a restaurant in a prompt and safe manner is fine.
While my initial point of puzzlement is why you would ever click on an ad, the core issue you're bringing up seems flawed: I'm not quite sure why the product is the responsibility of the carrier. A newspaper isn't responsible for the food in a restaurant that advertises in them, nor is PBS responsible for what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does -- even though they namecheck them as sponsors quite often. The telephone company and postal service carry scams without intent to do so, but Verizon is not generally seen as culpable for the mess a computer can get in when "Microsoft called" somebody in the house to walk them through "free support."
You are of course correct in that carriers do bear an onus to reasonably and in good faith remove scams when they are brought to them. There's always a struggle there, and there will likely always be, as the scammers are adept at countering such effort.
In all seriousness, I do not use ad blockers, and I have the "disable advertising" off, although it is offered to me. I view my use of a web site and their ads the same way as walking into a restaurant and paying for the meal. They are putting content into a rectangle, and if I like the content, I will return. Some smaller groups provide free food or community supported food (heck, I do that on Wednesday game nights at my home), and some smaller sites provide free content. But in general, it's part of the assumption. If the cost is too high (too many ads, or even one that makes any kind of noise), I don't go back.
I do, however, block the hell out of popups. The agreement is a page of content. You don't get further access to my desktop unless and until I agree.
Big words for a guy whose own figures are off by 8 years.
I hate to say it, but not only are your figures are quite off, you have fallen into the specific trap of misguided thinking that both I and the comment I was responding to was making.
The level of technology reflected in a design is determined by the date the thing was *built*, not when it finally failed. Going to the comment I was replying to, you have just implied that an antique Studebaker that crashed this year represents the cars of 2015, and thus all current cars are unsafe as they lack air bags, seat belts, and crumple zones (in the last few years of the company they added the new innovation of the roll bar to the Studebaker Avanti, but most lacked even that).
The Hindenberg was built 79 years ago and crashed 78 years ago. It was built with technology of 79 years ago, not the technology of the following year when it crashed. There's a five year wonkiness in there involving bankruptcy and Nazi funding, but I went with the date of completion rather than the laying of the keel to match the other figure.
Chernobyl's reactors were designed, built and then the first came online in 1977. As they were all designed at the same time and built in a short period of a few years, they presumably all reflected the technology of that year, 37 years ago. When the disaster happened, they were not the technology of 1986, any more than that hypothetical crashed Studebaker reflects this year's car safety standards, even if you do safety retrofitting: that gets you seatbelts, but not some really fundamental things like crumple zones, roll bars and countless other basic improvements made to personal vehicle technology.
Which, if you'll read the comment I was responding to, was *exactly* the point being made, the one I was echoing, and the trap of thinking you fell into when reading my comment. That does indicate how pernicious an issue it is.
I know that *I* refuse to fly -- I've seen the footage of the Hindenberg. I know how dangerous flying is, and I would assume that absolutely no progress has been made in the last 79 years.
Similarly, in the last 37 years since Chernobyl, I can't imagine that anybody has had any ideas. It's not like nuclear engineering or flight are new fields that would have major advances.
I look forward to your reply when you get this message in the next few weeks, and hope to have your response in the next couple months!
It is likely that Arthur C. Clarke, the co-author of Space Odyssey, was the one who was right on the science for that bit of plot. Since he also did things like invent the idea for communication satellites and was a member of the British Interplanetary Society, it was likely on his capable shoulders that making the scene realistic fell. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall as that scene came together, with a great cinematic genius working with somebody explaining the harsh realities of microgravity, explosive decompression (and the velocity that causes Bowman to bounce around), and the very limited window of time in which the human body could get back into the airlock and survive. Then scripting, filming, and editing it together to convey that committed step leading to frantic, chaotic urgency.
The whole movie is a great example of collaboration. It sure wound up as one of the more memorable scenes in a movie packed with memorable scenes.
I doubt it is just the patents. Add in the price point and the fact that this is a relatively minor product, so there are no fancy retooled factories and a minimum of custom components are going into this, as opposed to in a flagship product. Plus a dozen other little issues that fall under those or add to them. It's basically using cheap components for a cheap price point. The Air uses the absolute latest and best to get to the minimum weight and size, but at a high price point. Sony did that for years as well, and had a similarly high price point relative to the general market of the time.
It is quite a bit underwhelming compared to even higher end Android tablets like the $650 Galaxy Note 12, but the killer feature is probably intended to be what will likely be a $300 and change street price with the ease of Android (for those who already have an Android phone). It's comparable to their Pavillion 14" laptop: http://www.amazon.com//dp/B00B...
I love KDE4. I use it every day. I can, however, see one issue. My biggest fault with KDE4 was that DCOP in KDE3 was a joy to use from a script (bash script, etc). DBUS is a pain in the butt. It's not only much saltier (in terms of syntactical salt) but it also tends to change much more often. Calls that work in one version don't work after an update. DCOP was more simple, had a great interface, and -- most importantly -- the app interfaces tended to stay stable.
I'm really hoping that the Qt5 and QML combo makes up for this, allowing easy scripting and simple use of internals. I used to say that KDE was like the *nix command line, only GUI: a bunch of small apps that exposed a ton of tiny options that you could link together. KDE4 clearly continued that philosophy with DBUS, but I think it was far less successful in that aspect.
To tie them all together, I used a computer for many years that was designed by Woz, marketed by Jobs, with a expanded processor and memory made by Gates' company to run Kildall's OS (and a few others). An Apple ][+ with the Microsoft Z-80 SoftCard card, running CP/M. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one. A world capable of inventing, manufacturing, and garnering capital and sales to see that innovation become available to people requires all of them.
I know I'd rather have lunch with the likes of Wozniak and Kildall, however. Add Ritchie and Kernighan, and that would be one heck of a table.
My comment was about the crazy assertion that, in the year 2014, when Twitter is omnipresent on every broadcast network, overlaid on many cable shows, and routinely quoted in online news, the most likely result of bringing up Twitter to a professional law enforcement officer would be that they so unexposed to the concept of Twitter that they would genuinely have no idea what the term meant and think the person was saying their bird was stolen.
Anything you have ascribed to me beyond that would not seem to be present in either my comment, or the comment I was replying to.
Are you living in a mid-2000s late night show skit? It may shock you, but in 2014 most people know what Twitter is. Incredibly, that includes law enforcement. Heck, many police departments have an official Twitter feed. I just checked the last three towns I've lived in, and they all have up to date Twitter feeds.
Far more than you would seem to appreciate a simple work of amusing text written on a forum as a morning jape. Let's see... do I understand headlines and have experience with people excited to do science? I have been running a newspaper and magazine services company for 17 years, and my wife is a research chemist who has "pretty data" pinned next to the bedroom bathroom mirror. (She thought it was funny too, when I read it to her before she left for work).
Yup. This is my wheelhouse. Now laugh at my funny, monkeyboy! You're the pink missing the point! Now off to run nude through the morning dew, free as a... holy hell it's cold! More coffee, and back to the heated indoors.
Seriously... did you really think that my little mock submission was anything other than silliness? If so, did you really think I was running outside naked as I typed the above? If so, I'm quite intrigued about your thought processes, and wish to study your life in detail. Also, judging by this pair of posts, I should probably cut back on the coffee, not add more. Either that or my flu medication is certainly doing something right.
In more calm seriousness: yes. I did understand the story itself. I was engaging in humor with my reply, riffing off the headline. There's a touch of pointed humor toward the end, but it really isn't directed at anything having to do with the submission, more the general topic of space exploration.
PersonFrom1420 submitted via church door nail, "The human body was not designed by God Almighty to live on the ocean in seafaring ships, and the longest any human has traveled has been close to coastlines. Without the protective cocoon of the coastal fish and shore leave, nautical travelers are subjected to Gout, Scurvy, and a malaise of the spirit that shall certainly result in dire consequence for any vessel attempting to find a new world to explore. In a Royal experiment, debtor's prisons are filled with scum of the streets, sealed away, and their outcome is surely the same as a nautical traveler who looks forward to a new life and possible riches from fruitful exploration. Also, if even one ship has a mutiny, NASA (the Nautical Authority of the Spanish Armada) should instantly force all manned sea faring traffic to halt for over a year, as various Royal Agencies, none of whom understand how to tie a knot, let alone sail a ship, confer over the loss, and consider halting this foolishness to focus on more incense swinging for the plague and merkin production at home. Certainly there is no profit to be gained in these new lands that are worth losing entire ships of human beings over, and there can be no future lands there that will ever be suitable for our children's children. May this missive find you in good health, Signed P.F.1420"
It varies from state to state but you can be held for around 48 to 72 hours without any charge or reasonable suspicion. Police tend to not abuse this capability too much for fear of having the courts rescind it but there are documented cases of individuals being held the full "legal" detainment period for no reason other than an officers "gut feeling".
I believe there still needs to be a reason to hold them. Often it is to confirm identity of indigent people with no ID (or an ID that clearly was not theirs, which is fairly common), but most of my experience is with the Public Defender's office (I used to work there in IT). At least in Florida, there were attorneys would happily go after and get released people who didn't have a clear reason to be held. IANAL, I just know they could get them released on the basis of no substantiated reason to hold them, and "gut feeling" would probably not suffice.
If you AAL, feel free to correct me; I'm uncertain about this, but it does fit what I've seen in practice in criminal situations.
Of course, we also dealt with a fair amount of abuse by law enforcement as well, including physical beatings. The butt of radios was a favored (and ruled unreasonable) weapon. I printed a number of large posters with photos of people's faces bearing the very distinct marks of their use: rectangles with charger dots.
He either made a consciable decision to wear the google glasses instead of his non-camera prescription into an area that is well known to have issues with recording equipment
He had brought spare glasses in the past, but having been there many times and already discussed the Glass with employees who had no problem with him wearing them at movies (as he had done so a few times already, after getting prescription lenses for them), he reasonably figured it would be okay to not carry the spare in. He even implies he has spares, but didn't bother with them as he had already talked about his Glass with employees at the theater and the employees knew he was wearing them as they sold and took his ticket on occasions in the past with no issues.
How many times would you carry a spare set actually on your person before you trust your new eyewear? Two weeks and three visits to the movie theater seems like a reasonable amount of time and visits to assume you don't need to worry any more.
And yet people like you still haven't explained why the questioning of the BJ happened in the first place. I'm impressed that after the right gave Ken Star unprecedented special prosecuting powers the ONLY thing he could come up with was lying about a BJ.
Because he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones who claimed he propositioned and then showed her his penis while he was governor. That case was settled out of court with a $850k settlement and then dismissed. It was during the deposition to that case that he committed perjury, and that case had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or anything William Clinton did in the office of the President. Monica was simply one of several women who were brought forth under subpoena to testify under oath if he had propositioned or had sex with them to establish a pattern of behavior. This is a fairly common thing to do in cases of sexual harassment. It was only later, when the physical evidence was presented (the "blue dress"), that it turned out that at least one of his denials was perjury.
There's more to it, of course. I'm only answering your specific question as to why the question even came up in a court of law. The nature of their sexual relations was asked of and about many women who had been in his employ or otherwise worked with him because he was being sued for harassment and exposing himself when he was governor. Monica just happened to be one who had physical evidence supporting her claims and refuting Clinton's denial on the stand.
Well for one thing, the Google boys like to spy on us.
To date, they have been open about it. Startlingly open, to the point that they have working groups like the Data Liberation Front and clear documents that state that you can delete your data, but they can't wash your meta and abstracted data from their summarized data, only your identity, if you delete it.
They are in a business where the SOP is not to explain what they do and push the boundaries of what they can get away with without getting caught. Google, on the other hand seem to be honest, to the point of penalizing internal divisions that have made ethical missteps using the same rules they hold outside groups accountable to.
Have no illusions: they do collect data, and are a commercially motivated company, and no amount of good behavior should result in a lax approach to watching them carefully, especially given their scope. But to date they are the best option out there, allowing and encouraging people to give informed consent (having two versions of all legalese, one legal, one plain language to communicate) and giving people the ability to opt entirely out of their constellation of services, even after having been a user in the past.
But I suspect you've moved beyond anything related to the cost of personal time invested in building your own router versus the cost of a prebuilt router.
How much do they pay per square foot for your office? For your furniture? For your break room? Do you have any equipment? A computer? A laptop and/or tablet? A phone? Business bandwidth and phone lines/accounts for them? As a business owner, I can tell you that full time employees in an office are danged expensive.
Even still, it seems like the OP was being a bit over zealous. While I do think you're low-balling the overhead of your employment, their figure seems like they were likely exaggerating (unless they are in an exceptionally expensive city, which I wouldn't have experience with).
Slashdot Mirror
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.
Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.
The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.
Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.
What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.
And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.
I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.
I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.
But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.
Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"
The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.
But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.
Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.
This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.
Mea culpa. I did not read my own second paragraph. I meant to (and remembered writing) a point to the effect that the carrier does exert control, and that discretion or lack of concern is *certainly* part of their final product. That is implied (but not explicitly stated) in my original comment where I note that I will leave and no longer patronize a site with popups or any ad that makes noise unprompted.
And of course, as I *do* state in the second paragraph, some scammers will get annoying ads that violate the site's rules or are criminal in intent now and then, even with a genuine effort on the part of the carrier. Thus the occasional prominent note similar to "Sorry about the autoplay video ads; I'm working to eliminate them with my ad service." So long as it is handled promptly and in good faith, I have no problem, any more than a health hazard being handled at a restaurant in a prompt and safe manner is fine.
I'm fairly certain you're just restating the point I made in the second paragraph which you did not quote (or seem to read).
While my initial point of puzzlement is why you would ever click on an ad, the core issue you're bringing up seems flawed: I'm not quite sure why the product is the responsibility of the carrier. A newspaper isn't responsible for the food in a restaurant that advertises in them, nor is PBS responsible for what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does -- even though they namecheck them as sponsors quite often. The telephone company and postal service carry scams without intent to do so, but Verizon is not generally seen as culpable for the mess a computer can get in when "Microsoft called" somebody in the house to walk them through "free support."
You are of course correct in that carriers do bear an onus to reasonably and in good faith remove scams when they are brought to them. There's always a struggle there, and there will likely always be, as the scammers are adept at countering such effort.
In all seriousness, I do not use ad blockers, and I have the "disable advertising" off, although it is offered to me. I view my use of a web site and their ads the same way as walking into a restaurant and paying for the meal. They are putting content into a rectangle, and if I like the content, I will return. Some smaller groups provide free food or community supported food (heck, I do that on Wednesday game nights at my home), and some smaller sites provide free content. But in general, it's part of the assumption. If the cost is too high (too many ads, or even one that makes any kind of noise), I don't go back.
I do, however, block the hell out of popups. The agreement is a page of content. You don't get further access to my desktop unless and until I agree.
Big words for a guy whose own figures are off by 8 years.
I hate to say it, but not only are your figures are quite off, you have fallen into the specific trap of misguided thinking that both I and the comment I was responding to was making.
The level of technology reflected in a design is determined by the date the thing was *built*, not when it finally failed. Going to the comment I was replying to, you have just implied that an antique Studebaker that crashed this year represents the cars of 2015, and thus all current cars are unsafe as they lack air bags, seat belts, and crumple zones (in the last few years of the company they added the new innovation of the roll bar to the Studebaker Avanti, but most lacked even that).
The Hindenberg was built 79 years ago and crashed 78 years ago. It was built with technology of 79 years ago, not the technology of the following year when it crashed. There's a five year wonkiness in there involving bankruptcy and Nazi funding, but I went with the date of completion rather than the laying of the keel to match the other figure.
Chernobyl's reactors were designed, built and then the first came online in 1977. As they were all designed at the same time and built in a short period of a few years, they presumably all reflected the technology of that year, 37 years ago. When the disaster happened, they were not the technology of 1986, any more than that hypothetical crashed Studebaker reflects this year's car safety standards, even if you do safety retrofitting: that gets you seatbelts, but not some really fundamental things like crumple zones, roll bars and countless other basic improvements made to personal vehicle technology.
Which, if you'll read the comment I was responding to, was *exactly* the point being made, the one I was echoing, and the trap of thinking you fell into when reading my comment. That does indicate how pernicious an issue it is.
I know that *I* refuse to fly -- I've seen the footage of the Hindenberg. I know how dangerous flying is, and I would assume that absolutely no progress has been made in the last 79 years.
Similarly, in the last 37 years since Chernobyl, I can't imagine that anybody has had any ideas. It's not like nuclear engineering or flight are new fields that would have major advances.
I look forward to your reply when you get this message in the next few weeks, and hope to have your response in the next couple months!
It is likely that Arthur C. Clarke, the co-author of Space Odyssey, was the one who was right on the science for that bit of plot. Since he also did things like invent the idea for communication satellites and was a member of the British Interplanetary Society, it was likely on his capable shoulders that making the scene realistic fell. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall as that scene came together, with a great cinematic genius working with somebody explaining the harsh realities of microgravity, explosive decompression (and the velocity that causes Bowman to bounce around), and the very limited window of time in which the human body could get back into the airlock and survive. Then scripting, filming, and editing it together to convey that committed step leading to frantic, chaotic urgency.
The whole movie is a great example of collaboration. It sure wound up as one of the more memorable scenes in a movie packed with memorable scenes.
It's who replaced Data right before the TNG franchise ended.
Thus you can consider Slashdot's current state to be optional Data loss.
I doubt it is just the patents. Add in the price point and the fact that this is a relatively minor product, so there are no fancy retooled factories and a minimum of custom components are going into this, as opposed to in a flagship product. Plus a dozen other little issues that fall under those or add to them. It's basically using cheap components for a cheap price point. The Air uses the absolute latest and best to get to the minimum weight and size, but at a high price point. Sony did that for years as well, and had a similarly high price point relative to the general market of the time.
It is quite a bit underwhelming compared to even higher end Android tablets like the $650 Galaxy Note 12, but the killer feature is probably intended to be what will likely be a $300 and change street price with the ease of Android (for those who already have an Android phone). It's comparable to their Pavillion 14" laptop: http://www.amazon.com//dp/B00B...
Its a labtop, not a tablet.
So it's a flip phone.
(Jokes aside, I like this product; I don't mean to be flip).
I love KDE4. I use it every day. I can, however, see one issue. My biggest fault with KDE4 was that DCOP in KDE3 was a joy to use from a script (bash script, etc). DBUS is a pain in the butt. It's not only much saltier (in terms of syntactical salt) but it also tends to change much more often. Calls that work in one version don't work after an update. DCOP was more simple, had a great interface, and -- most importantly -- the app interfaces tended to stay stable.
I'm really hoping that the Qt5 and QML combo makes up for this, allowing easy scripting and simple use of internals. I used to say that KDE was like the *nix command line, only GUI: a bunch of small apps that exposed a ton of tiny options that you could link together. KDE4 clearly continued that philosophy with DBUS, but I think it was far less successful in that aspect.
To tie them all together, I used a computer for many years that was designed by Woz, marketed by Jobs, with a expanded processor and memory made by Gates' company to run Kildall's OS (and a few others). An Apple ][+ with the Microsoft Z-80 SoftCard card, running CP/M. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one. A world capable of inventing, manufacturing, and garnering capital and sales to see that innovation become available to people requires all of them.
I know I'd rather have lunch with the likes of Wozniak and Kildall, however. Add Ritchie and Kernighan, and that would be one heck of a table.
My comment was about the crazy assertion that, in the year 2014, when Twitter is omnipresent on every broadcast network, overlaid on many cable shows, and routinely quoted in online news, the most likely result of bringing up Twitter to a professional law enforcement officer would be that they so unexposed to the concept of Twitter that they would genuinely have no idea what the term meant and think the person was saying their bird was stolen.
Anything you have ascribed to me beyond that would not seem to be present in either my comment, or the comment I was replying to.
Are you living in a mid-2000s late night show skit? It may shock you, but in 2014 most people know what Twitter is. Incredibly, that includes law enforcement. Heck, many police departments have an official Twitter feed. I just checked the last three towns I've lived in, and they all have up to date Twitter feeds.
Far more than you would seem to appreciate a simple work of amusing text written on a forum as a morning jape. Let's see... do I understand headlines and have experience with people excited to do science? I have been running a newspaper and magazine services company for 17 years, and my wife is a research chemist who has "pretty data" pinned next to the bedroom bathroom mirror. (She thought it was funny too, when I read it to her before she left for work).
Yup. This is my wheelhouse. Now laugh at my funny, monkeyboy! You're the pink missing the point! Now off to run nude through the morning dew, free as a... holy hell it's cold! More coffee, and back to the heated indoors.
Seriously... did you really think that my little mock submission was anything other than silliness? If so, did you really think I was running outside naked as I typed the above? If so, I'm quite intrigued about your thought processes, and wish to study your life in detail. Also, judging by this pair of posts, I should probably cut back on the coffee, not add more. Either that or my flu medication is certainly doing something right.
In more calm seriousness: yes. I did understand the story itself. I was engaging in humor with my reply, riffing off the headline. There's a touch of pointed humor toward the end, but it really isn't directed at anything having to do with the submission, more the general topic of space exploration.
PersonFrom1420 submitted via church door nail, "The human body was not designed by God Almighty to live on the ocean in seafaring ships, and the longest any human has traveled has been close to coastlines. Without the protective cocoon of the coastal fish and shore leave, nautical travelers are subjected to Gout, Scurvy, and a malaise of the spirit that shall certainly result in dire consequence for any vessel attempting to find a new world to explore. In a Royal experiment, debtor's prisons are filled with scum of the streets, sealed away, and their outcome is surely the same as a nautical traveler who looks forward to a new life and possible riches from fruitful exploration. Also, if even one ship has a mutiny, NASA (the Nautical Authority of the Spanish Armada) should instantly force all manned sea faring traffic to halt for over a year, as various Royal Agencies, none of whom understand how to tie a knot, let alone sail a ship, confer over the loss, and consider halting this foolishness to focus on more incense swinging for the plague and merkin production at home. Certainly there is no profit to be gained in these new lands that are worth losing entire ships of human beings over, and there can be no future lands there that will ever be suitable for our children's children. May this missive find you in good health, Signed P.F.1420"
It varies from state to state but you can be held for around 48 to 72 hours without any charge or reasonable suspicion. Police tend to not abuse this capability too much for fear of having the courts rescind it but there are documented cases of individuals being held the full "legal" detainment period for no reason other than an officers "gut feeling".
I believe there still needs to be a reason to hold them. Often it is to confirm identity of indigent people with no ID (or an ID that clearly was not theirs, which is fairly common), but most of my experience is with the Public Defender's office (I used to work there in IT). At least in Florida, there were attorneys would happily go after and get released people who didn't have a clear reason to be held. IANAL, I just know they could get them released on the basis of no substantiated reason to hold them, and "gut feeling" would probably not suffice.
If you AAL, feel free to correct me; I'm uncertain about this, but it does fit what I've seen in practice in criminal situations.
Of course, we also dealt with a fair amount of abuse by law enforcement as well, including physical beatings. The butt of radios was a favored (and ruled unreasonable) weapon. I printed a number of large posters with photos of people's faces bearing the very distinct marks of their use: rectangles with charger dots.
He either made a consciable decision to wear the google glasses instead of his non-camera prescription into an area that is well known to have issues with recording equipment
He had brought spare glasses in the past, but having been there many times and already discussed the Glass with employees who had no problem with him wearing them at movies (as he had done so a few times already, after getting prescription lenses for them), he reasonably figured it would be okay to not carry the spare in. He even implies he has spares, but didn't bother with them as he had already talked about his Glass with employees at the theater and the employees knew he was wearing them as they sold and took his ticket on occasions in the past with no issues.
How many times would you carry a spare set actually on your person before you trust your new eyewear? Two weeks and three visits to the movie theater seems like a reasonable amount of time and visits to assume you don't need to worry any more.
And yet people like you still haven't explained why the questioning of the BJ happened in the first place. I'm impressed that after the right gave Ken Star unprecedented special prosecuting powers the ONLY thing he could come up with was lying about a BJ.
Because he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones who claimed he propositioned and then showed her his penis while he was governor. That case was settled out of court with a $850k settlement and then dismissed. It was during the deposition to that case that he committed perjury, and that case had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or anything William Clinton did in the office of the President. Monica was simply one of several women who were brought forth under subpoena to testify under oath if he had propositioned or had sex with them to establish a pattern of behavior. This is a fairly common thing to do in cases of sexual harassment. It was only later, when the physical evidence was presented (the "blue dress"), that it turned out that at least one of his denials was perjury.
There's more to it, of course. I'm only answering your specific question as to why the question even came up in a court of law. The nature of their sexual relations was asked of and about many women who had been in his employ or otherwise worked with him because he was being sued for harassment and exposing himself when he was governor. Monica just happened to be one who had physical evidence supporting her claims and refuting Clinton's denial on the stand.
Well for one thing, the Google boys like to spy on us.
To date, they have been open about it. Startlingly open, to the point that they have working groups like the Data Liberation Front and clear documents that state that you can delete your data, but they can't wash your meta and abstracted data from their summarized data, only your identity, if you delete it.
They are in a business where the SOP is not to explain what they do and push the boundaries of what they can get away with without getting caught. Google, on the other hand seem to be honest, to the point of penalizing internal divisions that have made ethical missteps using the same rules they hold outside groups accountable to.
Have no illusions: they do collect data, and are a commercially motivated company, and no amount of good behavior should result in a lax approach to watching them carefully, especially given their scope. But to date they are the best option out there, allowing and encouraging people to give informed consent (having two versions of all legalese, one legal, one plain language to communicate) and giving people the ability to opt entirely out of their constellation of services, even after having been a user in the past.
Yes. I agree.
But I suspect you've moved beyond anything related to the cost of personal time invested in building your own router versus the cost of a prebuilt router.
How much do they pay per square foot for your office? For your furniture? For your break room? Do you have any equipment? A computer? A laptop and/or tablet? A phone? Business bandwidth and phone lines/accounts for them? As a business owner, I can tell you that full time employees in an office are danged expensive.
Even still, it seems like the OP was being a bit over zealous. While I do think you're low-balling the overhead of your employment, their figure seems like they were likely exaggerating (unless they are in an exceptionally expensive city, which I wouldn't have experience with).