Actually, torture is considered one of the least reliable interrogation methods due to the fact that when someone is in extreme pain, they'll tell you anything - most likely what they think you want to hear, regardless of whether it's the truth or not - to get you to stop inflicting said pain.
Hook up a phone, especially one of the ones with faster access (ATT's EDGE or Verizon's new network) and you instantly have shareable access anywhere.
Imagine a guy assigned as part of the press entourage of the President. His job is to maintain the wireless connectivity while the rest of the press corps connect to his node over 802.11b and VPN or what-have-you to transmit their stories/pictures back to the home office. An agreement of such a nature could significantly reduce costs for journalists.
When they are no longer minors, any contracts they entered into and haven't disaffirmed are "ratified" - that is, they're made binding. Do you think that the average 17 year old is going to care about or read the EULA that they agree to?
Except when you void a contract as a minor, you have to put things back to how they were before you entered into the contract... this would entail your kid(s) returning the MS software to wherever they bought it and uninstalling it from wherever they installed it.
As I recall, back in the heyday of SDI, one of the tactics the Russians had planned to defeat any particle-beam or space-based-laser system was to rotate their missile at a very high speed, much like a bullet. The intent was to reduce the amount of "face time" an arbitrary area of the missile had with the laser/particle beam.
Aircraft may have a harder time utilizing the rotational method of defense, however.:)
Here, you're half right. But the technologies that arose from the development of Lockheed's Sea Shadow are being implemented into current designs, such as the DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer and the LPD-17 San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship, as seen by their sloping sides and angled exhaust stacks.
Armor matters more.
Interesting you say this, since most modern ships are lightly armored. (Not armed - note the distinction.) Witness the gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole from a small boat of explosives. And many people would say that stealth matters immensely as more and more rogue states acquire castoffs from the former Soviet Union.
There's a good argument for heavily armored battleships for shore bombardment...
The ERGM (scroll down for a description of it) has a range far greater than any 16-inch gun ever did. In addition, guided munitions such as the Tomahawk and the ERGM are much more accurate and precise than 16-inch gunfire is, allowing for fewer shells fired and less chance of friendly fire casualties.
The U.S. Navy had an "arsenal ship" concept in the early 1990s, but never built any.
The Navy is still reviewing this design, actually - you can see an overviews, histories and diagrams of it here, here, and here. One of the many, many reasons that it is currently in limbo has to do with a proposed plan to retrofit some of the oldest Ohio-class submarines to carry 154 Tomahawks and a SEAL team, which would duplicate the effort being expended to design an arsenal ship. The DD-21 is another duplication of effort issue further muddying the outlook for the arsenal ship, as its explicit job is land attack.
Re cently in the US Naval Institute's Proceedings, their monthly magazine, there was a great article describing how the amount of money that the Air Force recieves as a whole is staying the same, but their weapons of choice (F-22, B-2) are horrifically expensive. For instance, originally a force of 500-700 F-22s was envisioned by the Air Force when they decided to use the Lockheed variant of the F-22/23. However, due to budget overruns and contraints put on the program by the Air Force, that number has now shrunk to 150-250 aircraft. An analogous situation is happening with the B-2 - originally there were to be 200 of the long-range bombers. However, with current projections of $2B+ for each bomber, the number that the Air Force has for their force of B-2s is around 60, with very few of those bombers ever seeing combat, because who wants to risk a $2B bomber on a conventional bombing mission?
The overall effect of these expensive programs is to reduce the overall force structure of the Air Force. Even with the best technology in the world, a small number of planes can still be overrun by a larger number of planes. It has been suggested that the Air Force use something like the "high/low mix" that the Navy currently uses - the "high" being the multi-billion dollar carrier, with its power projection (read: ability to launch aircraft from anywhere), and the low being the much less costly guided missile frigate, with its land attack (Tomahawk), anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
In the end, however, Congress will most likely end up giving more money to the Air Force.
At Georgia Tech, we use Scheme as the language of choice for our intro to CS class, CS 1321. Since the courses after this one transition into Java and then C and *then* branch off into other languages, I'm still not sure why Scheme is taught first, but hey... I'm not a CS major.
Um, Starfleet is obviously a derivative of the Navy... Think about it.
- StarFLEET (Like a fleet of ships)
- Ensign, LT (j.g.), LT, LT CDR, CDR, CAPT, ADM, etc.
- "Engineering" (there are no "engineering" spaces on aircraft)
- The process of naming ships individually is a Navy thing. Individual aircraft aren't named. (compare the USS Enterprise, NX-01 with the USS Enterprise, CV-65)
And so on and so forth... just watch most any Trek show and you'll get the idea.
Yet it failed to point out that the largest engagement of the US military in the Cold War era -- Vietnam -- took the US military by shock. No one would have anticipated that a dedicated group of guerilla resistance fighters in a small Southeast Asian country, facing against up the US, with its superior firepower and complete dominance of the sky, could have kicked the pants off the US military and sent them scrambling back home with their tails between their legs.
The level of dis- and mis-information out there is astounding... apparently, this poster has never heard of Operation Rolling Thunder, wherein the restrictions placed upon bombers were lifted and a MASSIVE campaign against North Vietnam was effecively being waged. However, due to political wrangling and the agitation of the Chinese/Russian/etc., Rolling Thunder was suspended and the conflict in Vietnam was evetually turned over to the South Vietnamese defense forces, who were woefully ill-equipped to withstand the onslaught of the communist-backed north.
But it's all a crapshoot anyway. Rumsfeld will most likely try to develop NMD, with the same results (read: shitty) that have come from previous tests.
I just can't believe that Roger Staubach is the secretary of the Navy.:(
This feature is still there, at least in win2k... just drag a folder (fill it with shortcuts first) to wherever your taskbar isn't, and it becomes a quicklaunch bar. You can even make it auto-hide. As for putting them on the taskbar, right click on the taskbar -> Toolbars -> New Toolbar... then select your favorite folder full of shortcuts, if you want fast access to programs, or folders if you want quick access to them.
Odd... when I run explorer (start -> run -> explorer) and select the "detail" view option, I get more or less the old file manager layout. Just FYI.:)
Free Market Principles and The Economist
on
The Myth of QWERTY
·
· Score: 1
After reading the article, two conclusions came to mind.
1) The Economist, while a great news source and typically trustworthy, is being defensive about this supposed "market failure."
2) The market can and does fail sometimes to provide consumers with the best products. The case that I have in mind deals with BetaMax and VHS. BetaMax is the better format of the two (smaller, better video quality), yet the market "chose" to set VHS as the standard for consumer videos. A clear-cut case of market failure if I ever saw one.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, torture is considered one of the least reliable interrogation methods due to the fact that when someone is in extreme pain, they'll tell you anything - most likely what they think you want to hear, regardless of whether it's the truth or not - to get you to stop inflicting said pain.
Hook up a phone, especially one of the ones with faster access (ATT's EDGE or Verizon's new network) and you instantly have shareable access anywhere.
Imagine a guy assigned as part of the press entourage of the President. His job is to maintain the wireless connectivity while the rest of the press corps connect to his node over 802.11b and VPN or what-have-you to transmit their stories/pictures back to the home office. An agreement of such a nature could significantly reduce costs for journalists.
Yes, a four year old operating system is "the current operating system." Oh, that makes sense.
When they are no longer minors, any contracts they entered into and haven't disaffirmed are "ratified" - that is, they're made binding. Do you think that the average 17 year old is going to care about or read the EULA that they agree to?
Except when you void a contract as a minor, you have to put things back to how they were before you entered into the contract... this would entail your kid(s) returning the MS software to wherever they bought it and uninstalling it from wherever they installed it.
Contract law is funny that way.
As I recall, back in the heyday of SDI, one of the tactics the Russians had planned to defeat any particle-beam or space-based-laser system was to rotate their missile at a very high speed, much like a bullet. The intent was to reduce the amount of "face time" an arbitrary area of the missile had with the laser/particle beam.
:)
Aircraft may have a harder time utilizing the rotational method of defense, however.
Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy
I read this and thought "What do the Marines care what Vermont does?"
Some inaccuracies in your post:
Just trying to clear up some confusion.
Re cently in the US Naval Institute's Proceedings, their monthly magazine, there was a great article describing how the amount of money that the Air Force recieves as a whole is staying the same, but their weapons of choice (F-22, B-2) are horrifically expensive. For instance, originally a force of 500-700 F-22s was envisioned by the Air Force when they decided to use the Lockheed variant of the F-22/23. However, due to budget overruns and contraints put on the program by the Air Force, that number has now shrunk to 150-250 aircraft. An analogous situation is happening with the B-2 - originally there were to be 200 of the long-range bombers. However, with current projections of $2B+ for each bomber, the number that the Air Force has for their force of B-2s is around 60, with very few of those bombers ever seeing combat, because who wants to risk a $2B bomber on a conventional bombing mission?
The overall effect of these expensive programs is to reduce the overall force structure of the Air Force. Even with the best technology in the world, a small number of planes can still be overrun by a larger number of planes. It has been suggested that the Air Force use something like the "high/low mix" that the Navy currently uses - the "high" being the multi-billion dollar carrier, with its power projection (read: ability to launch aircraft from anywhere), and the low being the much less costly guided missile frigate, with its land attack (Tomahawk), anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. In the end, however, Congress will most likely end up giving more money to the Air Force.
At Georgia Tech, we use Scheme as the language of choice for our intro to CS class, CS 1321. Since the courses after this one transition into Java and then C and *then* branch off into other languages, I'm still not sure why Scheme is taught first, but hey... I'm not a CS major.
Um, Starfleet is obviously a derivative of the Navy... Think about it.
- StarFLEET (Like a fleet of ships)
- Ensign, LT (j.g.), LT, LT CDR, CDR, CAPT, ADM, etc.
- "Engineering" (there are no "engineering" spaces on aircraft)
- The process of naming ships individually is a Navy thing. Individual aircraft aren't named. (compare the USS Enterprise, NX-01 with the USS Enterprise, CV-65)
And so on and so forth... just watch most any Trek show and you'll get the idea.
How to do exactly the same thing in Windows *anything* -
ren *.txt *.html
Whee.
Btw, for...do is also available in windows.
Yet it failed to point out that the largest engagement of the US military in the Cold War era -- Vietnam -- took the US military by shock. No one would have anticipated that a dedicated group of guerilla resistance fighters in a small Southeast Asian country, facing against up the US, with its superior firepower and complete dominance of the sky, could have kicked the pants off the US military and sent them scrambling back home with their tails between their legs.
The level of dis- and mis-information out there is astounding... apparently, this poster has never heard of Operation Rolling Thunder, wherein the restrictions placed upon bombers were lifted and a MASSIVE campaign against North Vietnam was effecively being waged. However, due to political wrangling and the agitation of the Chinese/Russian/etc., Rolling Thunder was suspended and the conflict in Vietnam was evetually turned over to the South Vietnamese defense forces, who were woefully ill-equipped to withstand the onslaught of the communist-backed north.
But it's all a crapshoot anyway. Rumsfeld will most likely try to develop NMD, with the same results (read: shitty) that have come from previous tests.
I just can't believe that Roger Staubach is the secretary of the Navy.
This feature is still there, at least in win2k... just drag a folder (fill it with shortcuts first) to wherever your taskbar isn't, and it becomes a quicklaunch bar. You can even make it auto-hide. As for putting them on the taskbar, right click on the taskbar -> Toolbars -> New Toolbar... then select your favorite folder full of shortcuts, if you want fast access to programs, or folders if you want quick access to them.
Just so you know.
Odd... when I run explorer (start -> run -> explorer) and select the "detail" view option, I get more or less the old file manager layout. Just FYI. :)
1) The Economist, while a great news source and typically trustworthy, is being defensive about this supposed "market failure."
2) The market can and does fail sometimes to provide consumers with the best products. The case that I have in mind deals with BetaMax and VHS. BetaMax is the better format of the two (smaller, better video quality), yet the market "chose" to set VHS as the standard for consumer videos. A clear-cut case of market failure if I ever saw one.