Damn this technology is getting complicated. Even our leaders disagree on whether its a series of pipes or tubes.
"I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped." - Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.
It's a classic case of inmates running the asylum.
All I see is lawyers generating more work for lawyers. They are not stupid - of course they know that there is no way anyone can keep the lid on this, which suits them perfectly.
Whenever I feel over-confident, I do the water glass test. Put your finger in a glass of water. Remove the finger. If there's a hole in the water where your finger was, you're not expendable.
As another reply to your post pointed out, the reason to "shoot for the belly" is not to wound (vs. kill) the target, it's because by aiming for the "center of mass" you have the best chance of actually hitting your target. Snipers can go for the fancy head shots; regular grunts in the middle of a firefight don't have the time. And gut wounds are very often fatal.
Yes, and it's completely understandable from a grunt's view that they will not take any chances. I am, however, talking more about strategy than tactics. And I'm not saying that regular infantrymen just try to wound enemy soldiers. Shooting at "the centre of mass" will most likely stop you and leave you wounded and dying, and tie a lot of resources to help you. Most of us don't continue fighting Hollywood style after being shot like that.
There are plenty of weaponry that are *normally* designed to wound and maim. Anti-personnel mines, for example. And they are usually used as strategic weaponry (to bolster defences at strategic points). It's a much more effective weapon if it doesn't just kill the target instantly.
Any combat will strain medical logistics, with or without a deliberate "shoot to wound" policy. Overall, "shoot to wound" would probably create less strain on logistics because if you're not trying to shoot to kill, you're much less likely not to hit your target at all. Any army which tried not to kill its opponents would find it itself at an enormous disadvantage on the battlefield against any army which tried (as in fact all armies do) to kill as many as possible; what the medics are doing is irrelavant if the infantrymen fail to accomplish their mission. And I speak as someone who's done both jobs -- I liked being a medic a lot more than I liked being a grunt, but the simple fact is that medics don't win wars.
I respect your practical experience in the matter. I still maintain that wounded will strain any army's logistics much more than the dead. I'm not saying that regular infantrymen should "aim to wound", but overall it is better to wound a lot of enemy soldiers (in addition to killing, of course).
One shot, one kill, is always the infantryman's goal. The best possible way to remove an enemy soldier from the fight is to kill him; wounded enemies often can and do keep shooting back. The "wounding is better than killing" meme is often repeated among soldiers as well as civilians, but it does not appear anywhere in Army doctrine.
I have a military training (Finnish Defence Forces, conscript not professional). Though I'm not sure if it's an official doctrine, wounding an enemy soldier is often a good way to disable more than one enemy fighters. In fact during infantry training we were told that we should aim for the belly. This will, in most cases, disable the enemy and tie a larger number of support personnel and strain the enemy logistics. Only in movies, soldiers continue shooting like madmen after being shot in the belly.
I have also a medical corps man training and I know that the enemy will try to strain the medical logistics and other support units in a conflict. Breaking the support chain, of course also by killing, but especially by wounding a lot of soldiers is a fastest way to deplete supply and restrict mobility. In a symmetrical conflict, where both sides have field armies it is a more logical _strategy_ to wound as often as possible as this will strain enemy's resources also behind the front.
I don't know that much about asymmetrical combat (like the one we see in Iraq), I'll leave that to all the wannabe experts out there.
Why on Earth would a game company want you to play over and over, and keep enjoying your single purchase? Of course what they really want is "the next purchase," every time and on a continuing basis.
I'm afraid you're right. The mainstream gaming business is billion dollar industry, and it's run like one. Small and independent game developers have been marginalized and have to compete with huge multinational companies and their advertising budgets. At this point the most interesting games come from indie game developers. If only the skilled developers with vision were respected more, in the same way as perhaps people who have created hit tv series (Whedon for example). I think one of the reasons that game developers are not respected is because the corporate bosses see games only as some kids' stuff sold with french fries.
You have more important things on your mind than sexuality? Are you really old? Or crippled? Or in jail?:-)
I was not talking about sexuality in general. As I mentioned, sexuality is ok at workplace, but I do have more important things to do than watching porn at work.
No my hormones do not turn off at work. And of course sexuality is perfectly ok at work. However, surfing for porn at work is just something I have never understood. If you cannot wait until you "get off" from work to surf porn, I think you should really meet some people instead of drooling over the monitor in your cubicle.
And as a corporate policy there are a few reasons why surfing for porn should not be allowed. The most important of which is that most p0rn sites are full of malicious scripts.
Maybe I just have more important things "at hand".
Budget cuts in science budget and stunts like this. This really doesn't look good for NASA as a professional organisation and nobody seems to care. Does anyone believe Bush administration's talk about going back to the Moon? This is just another sad reminder of the ongoing assault on science.
I don't think any program can weed this "craziness" out. I recently saw a BBC (I think) documentary on people who somehow became obsessed with a person they fell in love with. I don't think you can profile people and find candidates who cannot fall in love or be jelous. In this documentary there was one elderly man who had seen a a girl his age during WWII and had never stopped thinking about her. He spent years trying to find the person and eventually found her decades later. Another example was a "happily" married man who fell in love with a woman and eventually lost his family. I think he understood that he would never get the other woman, but he was just too obsessed to stop. One little old lady stalked her ex-husband out of jealousy and just couldn't help it until her friends got her to move out of the country. All of these people seemed ordinary and genuine. I think this can happen to almost anyone.
Well it's obvious where these people come from because they see this as a marketing problem, and not a design problem.
Books are easy to carry everywhere and readability is better: print resolution is still better than most screens. Books are very usable. You can just flip pages back and forth, and everyone knows the "user interface". You don't need to buy a display device, hardware, OS, bundeled with some crappy DRM scheme.
Books are also beautiful objects to have in your bookshelf.
"Hey, you got yourself those glued HD-DVD+BlueRay discs from Warner! What's this then? Jurassic Poke?? Forrest Gimp?" "Umm..." "Dude. This is not glue on your discs."
January is the coldest month in Finland. Usually we have had snow cover by November/December. This year, there has been one freak snowstorm in the beginning of November, and right now it's raining outside. No snow cover for two winter months. Not your typical winter in Finland where temperatures in January can be -20 to -30 degrees Centigrade.
Disclaimer: I know weather does not equal climate.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn this technology is getting complicated. Even our leaders disagree on whether its a series of pipes or tubes.
"I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent
millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it
should be stopped."
- Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.
It's a classic case of inmates running the asylum.
All I see is lawyers generating more work for lawyers. They are not stupid - of course they know that there is no way anyone can keep the lid on this, which suits them perfectly.
Whenever I feel over-confident, I do the water glass test. Put your finger in a glass of water. Remove the finger. If there's a hole in the water where your finger was, you're not expendable.
As another reply to your post pointed out, the reason to "shoot for the belly" is not to wound (vs. kill) the target, it's because by aiming for the "center of mass" you have the best chance of actually hitting your target. Snipers can go for the fancy head shots; regular grunts in the middle of a firefight don't have the time. And gut wounds are very often fatal.
Yes, and it's completely understandable from a grunt's view that they will not take any chances. I am, however, talking more about strategy than tactics. And I'm not saying that regular infantrymen just try to wound enemy soldiers. Shooting at "the centre of mass" will most likely stop you and leave you wounded and dying, and tie a lot of resources to help you. Most of us don't continue fighting Hollywood style after being shot like that.
There are plenty of weaponry that are *normally* designed to wound and maim. Anti-personnel mines, for example. And they are usually used as strategic weaponry (to bolster defences at strategic points). It's a much more effective weapon if it doesn't just kill the target instantly.
Any combat will strain medical logistics, with or without a deliberate "shoot to wound" policy. Overall, "shoot to wound" would probably create less strain on logistics because if you're not trying to shoot to kill, you're much less likely not to hit your target at all. Any army which tried not to kill its opponents would find it itself at an enormous disadvantage on the battlefield against any army which tried (as in fact all armies do) to kill as many as possible; what the medics are doing is irrelavant if the infantrymen fail to accomplish their mission. And I speak as someone who's done both jobs -- I liked being a medic a lot more than I liked being a grunt, but the simple fact is that medics don't win wars.
I respect your practical experience in the matter. I still maintain that wounded will strain any army's logistics much more than the dead. I'm not saying that regular infantrymen should "aim to wound", but overall it is better to wound a lot of enemy soldiers (in addition to killing, of course).
One shot, one kill, is always the infantryman's goal. The best possible way to remove an enemy soldier from the fight is to kill him; wounded enemies often can and do keep shooting back. The "wounding is better than killing" meme is often repeated among soldiers as well as civilians, but it does not appear anywhere in Army doctrine.
I have a military training (Finnish Defence Forces, conscript not professional). Though I'm not sure if it's an official doctrine, wounding an enemy soldier is often a good way to disable more than one enemy fighters. In fact during infantry training we were told that we should aim for the belly. This will, in most cases, disable the enemy and tie a larger number of support personnel and strain the enemy logistics. Only in movies, soldiers continue shooting like madmen after being shot in the belly.
I have also a medical corps man training and I know that the enemy will try to strain the medical logistics and other support units in a conflict. Breaking the support chain, of course also by killing, but especially by wounding a lot of soldiers is a fastest way to deplete supply and restrict mobility. In a symmetrical conflict, where both sides have field armies it is a more logical _strategy_ to wound as often as possible as this will strain enemy's resources also behind the front.
I don't know that much about asymmetrical combat (like the one we see in Iraq), I'll leave that to all the wannabe experts out there.
Why on Earth would a game company want you to play over and over, and keep enjoying your single purchase? Of course what they really want is "the next purchase," every time and on a continuing basis.
I'm afraid you're right. The mainstream gaming business is billion dollar industry, and it's run like one. Small and independent game developers have been marginalized and have to compete with huge multinational companies and their advertising budgets. At this point the most interesting games come from indie game developers. If only the skilled developers with vision were respected more, in the same way as perhaps people who have created hit tv series (Whedon for example). I think one of the reasons that game developers are not respected is because the corporate bosses see games only as some kids' stuff sold with french fries.
You have more important things on your mind than sexuality? Are you really old? Or crippled? Or in jail? :-)
I was not talking about sexuality in general. As I mentioned, sexuality is ok at workplace, but I do have more important things to do than watching porn at work.
No my hormones do not turn off at work. And of course sexuality is perfectly ok at work. However, surfing for porn at work is just something I have never understood. If you cannot wait until you "get off" from work to surf porn, I think you should really meet some people instead of drooling over the monitor in your cubicle.
And as a corporate policy there are a few reasons why surfing for porn should not be allowed. The most important of which is that most p0rn sites are full of malicious scripts.
Maybe I just have more important things "at hand".
Never really understood this whole "surfing pr0n at work". What's the point? Is it the thrill of possibly getting caught or what?
No one can hear you shower ...in space
Budget cuts in science budget and stunts like this. This really doesn't look good for NASA as a professional organisation and nobody seems to care. Does anyone believe Bush administration's talk about going back to the Moon? This is just another sad reminder of the ongoing assault on science.
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
"It's all in the name of science. Weird Science."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
I know, I like to tweak until something breaks. Any idea, if this extension would cause problems with Tab Mix Plus?
Uh, the British Skynet system pre-dates the original terminator movie by about 15 years.
Yup, that's only one of the problems of time travel.
For the sake of correctness, it's "R'yleh", not "R'lyeh."
Umm, say what now again? Everyne of our cultists knows it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R'lyeh you insensitive...
Just found that out on the Internet. They are just random ketters. There is no "Katoloo". Move along. Please?
They could send 10 000 lawyers into the dead cold of space?
Now that's the way to start colonization of space.
There's always one on the "other side".
I don't think any program can weed this "craziness" out. I recently saw a BBC (I think) documentary on people who somehow became obsessed with a person they fell in love with. I don't think you can profile people and find candidates who cannot fall in love or be jelous. In this documentary there was one elderly man who had seen a a girl his age during WWII and had never stopped thinking about her. He spent years trying to find the person and eventually found her decades later. Another example was a "happily" married man who fell in love with a woman and eventually lost his family. I think he understood that he would never get the other woman, but he was just too obsessed to stop. One little old lady stalked her ex-husband out of jealousy and just couldn't help it until her friends got her to move out of the country. All of these people seemed ordinary and genuine. I think this can happen to almost anyone.
Well it's obvious where these people come from because they see this as a marketing problem, and not a design problem.
Books are easy to carry everywhere and readability is better: print resolution is still better than most screens. Books are very usable. You can just flip pages back and forth, and everyone knows the "user interface". You don't need to buy a display device, hardware, OS, bundeled with some crappy DRM scheme.
Books are also beautiful objects to have in your bookshelf.
That was in the 2nd edition. THAAD is the "to hit numner" using a one sided die...
Poor snow flakes. You are all different! Just like everyone else.
"Hey, you got yourself those glued HD-DVD+BlueRay discs from Warner! What's this then? Jurassic Poke?? Forrest Gimp?"
"Umm..."
"Dude. This is not glue on your discs."
January is the coldest month in Finland. Usually we have had snow cover by November/December. This year, there has been one freak snowstorm in the beginning of November, and right now it's raining outside. No snow cover for two winter months. Not your typical winter in Finland where temperatures in January can be -20 to -30 degrees Centigrade.
Disclaimer: I know weather does not equal climate.
First they were told to find a place where the sun don't shine, and now this... I'm sure they are doing a hackuva job.