In 1934 the Frenchman Émile Girardeau stated he was building an obstacle-locating radio apparatus "conceived according to the principles stated by Tesla" and obtained a patent for a working system, a part of which was installed on the Normandie liner in 1935
invented radar, invented the jet engine, invented wireless detection tech, invented parallel computing, makes the faster car on the planet, most F1 companies are also based in the south east of England to use the best car engineers in the world.
Has no British owned car manufacturers
The UK also doesn't stink of garlic
Because no-one knows how to cook
and doesn't grind to a halt when 3 farmers "march" in the capital demanded more free EU money.
that is absolutely a false statement, the USA does not possess enough warheads to kill every human on the planet, let alone every living thing. a thousand weapons could not even kill 80% of the people in a large country like Russia or China or India; too many cities, not enough bombs.
Silly to talk about Russia in the same sentence as China or India.
Russia has a population of around 142 million and is 73% urban. 1000 bombs maybe wouldn't kill everyone but it's still at least one bomb per town of 142000 or more people, enough to ruin Putin's day.
During 1961-1962 the Kennedy administration revised this plan as supervised by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. SIOP-63, which took effect in July 1962 and remained mostly unchanged for more than 10 years, proposed five escalating attack options:[21]
1. Soviet nuclear missile sites, bomber airfields, and submarine tenders. 2. Other military sites away from cities, such as air defenses. 3. Military sites near cities. 4.. Command-and-control centers. 5. Full-scale "spasm" attack.
Can you name anyone besides Russia who might offer a credible threat?
Iran. Well, OK, it's only a potential threat, but if we nuke them before they've built any nuclear weapons, they're not ever going to be a threat are they?
The only reason that Buenos Aires still exists as a city and not a large hole in the ground is because the US pressured the UK into launching a dangerous sea assault rather than simply nuking Argentina.
Well, that and Maggie probably didn't want to be hung for war crimes.
Russia did not want another Muslim nut job country on its southern borders. When Russia was booted out of Afghanistan by the Taliban (with covert US assistance) the first thing Russia did was quietly try and ask NATO for help in preventing the Taliban from completely seizing power. The US refused since they thought they could control the people they had been arming for years, they failed and years later the US had to depose the very people it helped put in.
A-historical. The Taliban never fought the Soviets. They took over Afghanistan in 1996 long after the Soviet withdrawal (1989) and the fall of the Najibullah government (1992).
A sub-launched cruise missile (if we bothered to use them instead of the sub-launched BALLISTIC missiles we actually carry on our missile subs) is subsonic, so the missile would only cover about twenty miles in that time..
Uh, the USA does use SLCM's. And has even launched them against hostile targets unlike it's SLBM's.
Exactly. And in the interests of the economy, we shouldn't build any more nuclear weapons until we've used the ones we've got.
Nukes have a relatively short shelf-life. It would be nice if people paid attention in science class, then they wouldn't make stupid statements like yours. I recommend you start by looking up the term "radioactive decay" and think about what that would mean for a warhead made of an unstable radioactive material.
Pu239 has a half life of 24,100 years.
(Yes, I know that other things in their have shorter half lives, but the Plutonium isn't going anywhere soon).
Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
Now you are just being a silly person. Johny Haliday is not exactly the Beatles and 1664 is just another moderately good lager. Go away before I taunt you.
Well, their contribution to rock & roll , entertaining dialects, beer and drama still trump anything France has done in that time period
Come, on Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
"UK electricity ~ 20% nuclear France ~ 80% nuclear"
France generates more Nuclear waste? England generates more wind power. Was there a discernible point?
The UK generates more CO2. (And lets it's nuclear waste leak all over the show instead of reprocessing it).
"UK space effort - launched one 66Kg satellite in 1971 France - Arianespace"
I attend many lavish fireworks displays, but I don't feel obliged to pay for one. So France throws its money around on a space program that could be covered by others.
Arianespace (sometimes) makes a profit.
The U.K. seems to specialize in administration, let them administer Frances output for a higher yield. Good point.
Ok, you've trumped me. That's the best joke I've heard all week.
Go to impots.gouv.fr select "particuliers" then "Calculez votre impôt sur le revenu pour 2013" then "Simulateur de l'impôt 2013 sur les revenus de 2012"
For a single person earning 100k EUR in 2012:
RESULTAT
Nombre de personnes à charge 0
Nombre de parts 1
Revenu brut global ou déficit 90000
Revenu net imposable ou déficit à reporter 90000
Droits simples 23542
Impôt avant imputations 23542
Prime pour l'emploi 0
IMPôT SUR LE REVENU NET 23542
TAUX MOYEN D'IMPOSITION 26.16
Pour information
Taux marginal d'imposition (revenus soumis au barème) 41
Except that Skype facilitates incoming calls only,
Only on slashdot could you get +4 insightful for a post that is simply wrong.
From TFA:
Skype's PC-to-PC voice and video calls over the Internet aren't at issue here, but the French regulator is taking a keen interest in the Skype Out service, which allows users in France (and elsewhere) to use their PC or smartphone to call numbers on the public-switched telephone network in France and other countries.
This is explicitlty about the Skype feature that lets you make outgoing calls.
Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.
When your software blows up in your face it's embarrasing.
When your AR15 does the same?
(Anyway, it's already been done - it's called the HK416)
Slashdot Mirror
invented radar
Huh
In 1934 the Frenchman Émile Girardeau stated he was building an obstacle-locating radio apparatus "conceived according to the principles stated by Tesla" and obtained a patent for a working system, a part of which was installed on the Normandie liner in 1935
Invented the computer,
How many computers are made in the UK these days?
invented radar, invented the jet engine, invented wireless detection tech, invented parallel computing, makes the faster car on the planet, most F1 companies are also based in the south east of England to use the best car engineers in the world.
Has no British owned car manufacturers
The UK also doesn't stink of garlic
Because no-one knows how to cook
and doesn't grind to a halt when 3 farmers "march" in the capital demanded more free EU money.
'cos all your farmers are EU subsidised aristos.
that is absolutely a false statement, the USA does not possess enough warheads to kill every human on the planet, let alone every living thing. a thousand weapons could not even kill 80% of the people in a large country like Russia or China or India; too many cities, not enough bombs.
Silly to talk about Russia in the same sentence as China or India.
Russia has a population of around 142 million and is 73% urban. 1000 bombs maybe wouldn't kill everyone but it's still at least one bomb per town of 142000 or more people, enough to ruin Putin's day.
You also need the ability to erase crazies from the earth [...]
We also tend to forget how practical limited, tactical nuclear war really is [...]
A nuclear battlefield isn't the end of the world.
So which is it? Erase the crazies or not the end of the world?
Or are crazies somehow easier to kill than your citizens?
Citation, please. I do not believe that that is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan#SIOP-63
During 1961-1962 the Kennedy administration revised this plan as supervised by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. SIOP-63, which took effect in July 1962 and remained mostly unchanged for more than 10 years, proposed five escalating attack options:[21]
1. Soviet nuclear missile sites, bomber airfields, and submarine tenders.
2. Other military sites away from cities, such as air defenses.
3. Military sites near cities.
4.. Command-and-control centers.
5. Full-scale "spasm" attack.
Can you name anyone besides Russia who might offer a credible threat?
Iran. Well, OK, it's only a potential threat, but if we nuke them before they've built any nuclear weapons, they're not ever going to be a threat are they?
On that basis you'd better take out Belgium.
They could even use the same delivery mechanism as the British did in The Bed-Sitting Room
(They sent the bomb by post. Unfortunately they got the address wrong so it was returned).
The only reason that Buenos Aires still exists as a city and not a large hole in the ground is because the US pressured the UK into launching a dangerous sea assault rather than simply nuking Argentina.
Well, that and Maggie probably didn't want to be hung for war crimes.
Russia did not want another Muslim nut job country on its southern borders. When Russia was booted out of Afghanistan by the Taliban (with covert US assistance) the first thing Russia did was quietly try and ask NATO for help in preventing the Taliban from completely seizing power. The US refused since they thought they could control the people they had been arming for years, they failed and years later the US had to depose the very people it helped put in.
A-historical. The Taliban never fought the Soviets. They took over Afghanistan in 1996 long after the Soviet withdrawal (1989) and the fall of the Najibullah government (1992).
A sub-launched cruise missile (if we bothered to use them instead of the sub-launched BALLISTIC missiles we actually carry on our missile subs) is subsonic, so the missile would only cover about twenty miles in that time..
Uh, the USA does use SLCM's. And has even launched them against hostile targets unlike it's SLBM's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_cruise_missile
The problem (from the point of view of the victim) of a SLCM attack is that he might not notice 'em before they started to go off.
Exactly. And in the interests of the economy, we shouldn't build any more nuclear weapons until we've used the ones we've got.
Nukes have a relatively short shelf-life. It would be nice if people paid attention in science class, then they wouldn't make stupid statements like yours. I recommend you start by looking up the term "radioactive decay" and think about what that would mean for a warhead made of an unstable radioactive material.
Pu239 has a half life of 24,100 years.
(Yes, I know that other things in their have shorter half lives, but the Plutonium isn't going anywhere soon).
Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
Now you are just being a silly person. Johny Haliday is not exactly the Beatles and 1664 is just another moderately good lager. Go away before I taunt you.
A moderately good larger?
It's disgusting piss is what it is.
But don't diss the Johny.
"What has the UK done since 1945?"
Well, their contribution to rock & roll , entertaining dialects, beer and drama still trump anything France has done in that time period
Come, on Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
"UK electricity ~ 20% nuclear
France ~ 80% nuclear"
France generates more Nuclear waste? England generates more wind power. Was there a discernible point?
The UK generates more CO2. (And lets it's nuclear waste leak all over the show instead of reprocessing it).
"UK space effort - launched one 66Kg satellite in 1971
France - Arianespace"
I attend many lavish fireworks displays, but I don't feel obliged to pay for one. So France throws its money around on a space program that could be covered by others.
Arianespace (sometimes) makes a profit.
The U.K. seems to specialize in administration, let them administer Frances output for a higher yield. Good point.
Ok, you've trumped me. That's the best joke I've heard all week.
Obviously I screwed the URL, it's http://impots.gouv.fr/
Go to impots.gouv.fr select "particuliers" then "Calculez votre impôt sur le revenu pour 2013" then "Simulateur de l'impôt 2013 sur les revenus de 2012"
For a single person earning 100k EUR in 2012:
RESULTAT
Nombre de personnes à charge 0
Nombre de parts 1
Revenu brut global ou déficit 90000
Revenu net imposable ou déficit à reporter 90000
Droits simples 23542
Impôt avant imputations 23542
Prime pour l'emploi 0
IMPôT SUR LE REVENU NET 23542
TAUX MOYEN D'IMPOSITION 26.16
Pour information
Taux marginal d'imposition (revenus soumis au barème) 41
So you pay 23542 EUR of your 100000 EUR earnings.
Let me just state for the record. ...
If France is on one side of an issue
There is about a 92.6% chance I am on the other.
So, AQIM are cool for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_the_Islamic_Maghreb
Except that Skype facilitates incoming calls only,
Only on slashdot could you get +4 insightful for a post that is simply wrong.
From TFA:
Skype's PC-to-PC voice and video calls over the Internet aren't at issue here, but the French regulator is taking a keen interest in the Skype Out service, which allows users in France (and elsewhere) to use their PC or smartphone to call numbers on the public-switched telephone network in France and other countries.
This is explicitlty about the Skype feature that lets you make outgoing calls.
Parse error.
France should turn itself over to England, who seem to be sensible and close enough to babysit these silly pricks.
The UK? That dead-end backwater. The place that is so sensible that it's planning to institute a tax on poor people who have "too many bedrooms"?
French GDP/Capita 44,007 USD
UK GDP/Capita 38,811 USD
What has the UK done since 1945?
UK electricity ~ 20% nuclear
France ~ 80% nuclear
UK high speed rail lines: 1 (which goes to France)
France: around 6
UK space effort - launched one 66Kg satellite in 1971
France - Arianespace
UK exports (2011) $479,200,000,000 (10th in world)
France: $589,700,000,000 (5th in world)
Current account balance deficit (smaller is better!)
UK (#2 after USA) 162.973 billion USD
France (#4) 117.676 billion USD
But in the end the fact will remain that you spoke foolishly and were compelled to break faith by a stronger moral injunction
If you break your word because the other side has failed to hold up their end of the bargain?
way too epensive.
mine is EUR 0.00 per minute from France to the US.
And it is a French Telco so it's already dealimg with those regulations.
you hve got to be joking- a good step?
Sounds like the fuckking stupidest idea after coal.
Can you imagine 10 million people working on a design for the perfect AR15? Colt can't pay 10 million designers, just like Microsoft can't pay the millions of programmers that have written tho open source software we use every day.
When your software blows up in your face it's embarrasing.
When your AR15 does the same?
(Anyway, it's already been done - it's called the HK416)
All claims to moral superiority on his part are void since he had no authorization to handle the materials
So, morality consists of doing what you are authorized to do.
Thanks for clearing that up. Thousands of years of philosophising reduced to "shut up and obey orders".
How do you die by moving to where the food is?
Because of this bit:
None of this is rocket science. If industrialization is the problem, we need to de-industrialize.
No industrialisation, not enough food for 7 billion people.