It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.
N. Vietnam did no such thing, the military was restrained by politicians. we could have wiped the vietnamese race off the face of the earth, and with only conventional weapons.
And it's going to be different with N. Korea?
But I do disagree with the GP on the details: the USA won't run out of guns and bombs, it will run out of public approval for an endless stream of soldiers coming home in body bags. That's the post-Vietnam reality that every US President has to deal with.
Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [globalfirepower.com]) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?
Look up Seoul's population, then find it on a map.
I never intended to imply that he was a pacifist. However, his actions in Libya and Syria are exactly what I am talking about. They do not appear to reflect any compelling U.S. interest as defined by any traditional interpretation.
What, precisely, is the traditional interpretation of US interests?
And how much of our post-WWII foreign policy has actually served those interests?
The situation on the Korean peninsula wasn't exactly created by the Korean people. It was engineered by the Americans, Chinese, Russians and Japanese; because a unified Korea would have been so economically powerful NONE of the above wanted it to exist.
When this situation was 'engineered', "Made in Japan" wasn't even a joke yet, "Made in Korea" came along even later.
Obama isn't bending, so North Korea is losing face. The only thing they can do to regain face is a military victory. In the past this has involved attacking ships and shelling islands. Let's not kid ourselves, while a war with North Korea is unlikely, they still might kill people just up to the point where the US and SK would respond.
Saw an editorial yesterday that said what might be different this time is that Junior is inexperienced at how the game is played, and might think actually starting some sh*t is a good idea.
Millions of people stand to get killed - Seoul is targetted by a *huge* collection of conventional artillery - but if he thinks there's any outcome that won't leave him as a smoking hole in the ground, he's delu...
Here's an analogy: We've had sophisticated, easy-to-use statistics software packages for decades. What percentage of the population can use them correctly for anything non-trivial?
Tools are nice, but some stuff just inherently takes training. No tool is going to make me a competent oceanographer or particle physicist.
Sounds like the 1990s fetish for making programming languages so simple that even your boss could make reports and do other stuff for himself. Unfortunately, programming language syntax wasn't the primary hurdle: I've had bosses request reports that would add pounds of product and shipping costs.
For ML, it takes a good bit of training just to know what kinds of problems you can apply it to. A cookbook toolkit isn't going to reduce the need for expertise very much.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.
Like, everyone who watched TOS when it was new...
That's exactly how I felt about it: It was a modestly interesting SF movie, but it wasn't Star Trek.
Yeah, 'cause capitalists never screw up.
Or screw us.
Cut-n-paste just makes it way too easy to be a vanity paranoid psycho cluebie.
Actually, I thought the headline referred to George Lucas or Michael Bay.
Don't drink the Gnomes' kool-aide, Rip.
What country creates people like you, who still think a nuclear war is a good idea? They have a serious problem with their education system.
USA and NK?
Because the treaty of Versailles was a great achievement that brought an end to war in Europe forever and was universally seen as fair and just. /s
One Allied general famously heard the terms and said, "That's not a peace treaty, that's a formula for a 20-year ceasefire."
wrong
N. Vietnam did no such thing, the military was restrained by politicians. we could have wiped the vietnamese race off the face of the earth, and with only conventional weapons.
And it's going to be different with N. Korea?
But I do disagree with the GP on the details: the USA won't run out of guns and bombs, it will run out of public approval for an endless stream of soldiers coming home in body bags. That's the post-Vietnam reality that every US President has to deal with.
Can someone explain to me what it is that gives such a small country that has comparably weak military (they are ranked number 28 in the world according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [globalfirepower.com]) and pretty much zero chance of surviving a week in a real war the balls to be so dickish and war-hungry?
Look up Seoul's population, then find it on a map.
As everyone knows, It's All The Other Party's President's Fault.
I never intended to imply that he was a pacifist. However, his actions in Libya and Syria are exactly what I am talking about. They do not appear to reflect any compelling U.S. interest as defined by any traditional interpretation .
What, precisely, is the traditional interpretation of US interests?
And how much of our post-WWII foreign policy has actually served those interests?
As a result, I do not have any idea what he would do if NK launched an attack on SK or U.S.
We'll never find out what happened to the Pet Goat!
N. Korea attacked first.
No, Han did.
The situation on the Korean peninsula wasn't exactly created by the Korean people. It was engineered by the Americans, Chinese, Russians and Japanese; because a unified Korea would have been so economically powerful NONE of the above wanted it to exist.
When this situation was 'engineered', "Made in Japan" wasn't even a joke yet, "Made in Korea" came along even later.
Obama isn't bending, so North Korea is losing face. The only thing they can do to regain face is a military victory. In the past this has involved attacking ships and shelling islands. Let's not kid ourselves, while a war with North Korea is unlikely, they still might kill people just up to the point where the US and SK would respond.
Saw an editorial yesterday that said what might be different this time is that Junior is inexperienced at how the game is played, and might think actually starting some sh*t is a good idea.
Millions of people stand to get killed - Seoul is targetted by a *huge* collection of conventional artillery - but if he thinks there's any outcome that won't leave him as a smoking hole in the ground, he's delu...
Uh-oh, the world's in trouble.
I just put the original clay tablets in shoeboxes and stack them in my garage.
By tracking down and eliminating all the stupid ones?
Or all members of Congress.
They might decide "all of us" fits the definition better.
In fact, I think I've see a little-known movie on this very topic. "Eliminator", or something.
at football games.
Here's an analogy: We've had sophisticated, easy-to-use statistics software packages for decades. What percentage of the population can use them correctly for anything non-trivial?
Tools are nice, but some stuff just inherently takes training. No tool is going to make me a competent oceanographer or particle physicist.
Sounds like the 1990s fetish for making programming languages so simple that even your boss could make reports and do other stuff for himself. Unfortunately, programming language syntax wasn't the primary hurdle: I've had bosses request reports that would add pounds of product and shipping costs.
For ML, it takes a good bit of training just to know what kinds of problems you can apply it to. A cookbook toolkit isn't going to reduce the need for expertise very much.
Big Bang is only a theory. As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others
No, most evidence wins.
In 100 years we will look back as these ass-wipe clowns and laugh !!
Yeah, 'cause then it will be 100,000100 years older than we thought it was yesterday.
To put this in perspective it's like a year is 2.67 days longer than it was before.
And your boss wants you to put in 2.67 days more work.
Slashdot did at one point bill itself as a news site for nerds...
Now it's a talk site for news sites.