Yes, the information is that that is speculation. So far, they're running at just under 2% fatal crashes, so 1% is certainly a reasonable number, but who can say for sure?
Excuse me, but there is a difference between redundancy and affirmation. There's nothing wrong with agreeing with a post. Would you meta-mod the person who modded up the original post as "unfair" on the same grounds?
Lawyers? You really think that's necessary? I'll bet a politely-worded email to that nice Mr. Jeff Phucksum would be all it took to end this whole misunderstanding.
Well, maybe not. According to the article, this is intended as a weapon for use in situations where collateral damage should be minimized. It doesn't appear to be any easier to deliver, and almost certainly will be more expensive, than a conventional weapon of sufficient size to take out the intended target. The only difference is less people get killed and the building isn't leveled. I haven't noticed our enemies being especially sensitive to the issue of collateral damage.
I'm completely O-fucking-T here, but look at what Slashdot moderation comes down to. This person expresses their one-line, unsubstantiated opinion (never claiming to be doing anything more--no offense to you, TeknoHog), and because he appears to be on the side of the angels, BOOM, +4 Insightful. This is stupid; what good does viewing at +3 or higher do with ridiculous moderation like this? (Well, it will save you seeing this post, I guess;)
;; signal/noise ratio is getting worse; I now read posts at +3 or above
It's hopelessly OT to reply to your sig, but sadly it is true. I am at +2 now, but there are so many people posting sincere, but half-baked, crap at Score:2 that I fear I'll be pushing it up soon myself.
What difference does it make what they wear? Do your programmers meet customers? Do they do it while they're coding? Dress code is a power play, plain and simple.
Fortunately, I no longer have to play that game. (I just wear what my wife tells me to;)
Well, so far three people have modded this up as "interesting", which probably means "scary". That it is, but it's also sad and pathetic. This is about on a level with firing someone for what they wear while they're coding.
Your hypothesis is interesting, but certainly debatable. Space travel is much more akin to aviation than to computer science, and that's not good news.
Robert Crandall (who ran American Airlines for over 12 years, and so should know) says that airlines have never earned back the cost of their capital. Their very existence, as a whole--which is to say excluding a few bright spots like Southwest Airlines--has been dependent upon the eagerness of new investors to dump ever more money into these losing operations. As in the case of Major League baseball teams, the panache of owning an airline is apparently worth a bunch of money to a few high-flying (ho ho ho) businessmen.
As for technology, private aviation's record here is spotty as well. The same major airlines who cry so bitterly about the FAA's ancient computers and antiquated systems are slow slow slow to buy anything new for their own operations (except for airframes, which are much sexier than a new GPS for your old DC9). The only group of flyers consistently on the cutting edge are the "crazy millionaires" in their bizjets, which always seem to have the latest and greatest in avionics.
I'm afraid that the more likely scenario is for the military to lead the way into space. The jet engine and radar were invented to make it easier to kill people who are trying to kill you first. The moon shots were all about a "space race" between superpowers. I suspect the way forward will again be shown by the Air Force--though I certainly hope I'm wrong.
This is an example of the cluelessness that has taken over Slashdot "discussion." Not only is obvious sarcasm misunderstood here, but the basic facts of the story are missed (i.e. the paper was NOT published by MS).
Then, to compound the idiocy, the comment is modded up as "insightful."
Research has shown that the network of human sexual partners seems to be scale-free, too. In other words, some people have all the luck, while others have none.
...is probably not too insightful. The really big numbers (in terms of sex partners) are put up by prostitutes, who may not feel lucky to be doing what they're doing.
Okay, I tried to pay attention, but it never seemed worth all the fuss. So tell me again: how is bnetd within their rights? And, since battle.net is free (of cost) forever with a game purchase, what is bnetd's purpose? I read their feature list, and I was a little put off by "configurability of ad banners"--are you supposed to be able to sell ad space on a server that runs somebody else's game?
I dunno. I tilt at my share of windmills, but this one just never pissed me off. Call me obtuse (oh wait--this is Slashdot--call me a lot worse than that).
(And they also say you have no understanding of sarcasm or irony either. How could that possibly be?)
I've wondered that myself. As a country (and especially when a Republican is in the White House), we are the world's most prolific creators of irony. Ask yourself: blind luck, or masters of irony?
What's missing from the fourteenth? Offhand, I would say a prohibition from federal discrimination, since it applies only to the states.
Now, let me give you a hypothetical (as they say in Texas): what if a law were passed requiring all persons to be assigned a rating--based on a number of societal factors like income, race, sex, age, etc.--that indicated the likelihood of their becoming involved in crime, and those ratings kept in a police database. Now everyone is subject to the same law. Is this equal protection? If so, is it what you had in mind?
Um, the amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution, smart guy.
Oh, amendments. You mean like the Equal Rights Amendment that rattled around state legislatures for 10 years and never got ratified? I guess the guys that wrote that one just wanted to make extra double sure that equal protection was in there, since according to you it's all covered.
No stress required. It comes through loud and clear from your statements.
What's that you say, genius? I couldn't hear you with your fucking karma turned down so low.
I agree that this is an outrage. That said, I think we can probably do a better job of arguing against it.
This couldn't possibly be Constitutional, could it?
Probably. There's no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, and Equal Protection is certainly not built in--at least not explicitly enough to have stopped slavery or given women sufferage.
That, and isn't this collection of data an unlawful search? Especially when the person in question has no criminal record?
Search of what? Your face? It's already been established that your car can be searched for no good reason--surely they can take your picture.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping tabs on people who have previously broken the law, as unfortunately many felons are repeat offenders. However, there's no way you can convince me that keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime is a fair idea.
Um, keeping tabs on felons because of high rates of recidivism is keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime.
Don't get me wrong--I repeat that this is a terrible idea. I also stress that IANAL. I would, however, be interested in hearing viewpoints from those who AAL on how to fight this, because I don't think we're off to a good start here.
According to this page, a Blackhawk weighs about 11800 lbs empty, and has a mission gross of roughly 16800 lbs. Subtracting about 2000 lbs for the 360 gallons of fuel the internal tanks will carry, we have about 3000 lbs to do what we want with. The article on the armor says it weighs a ton or two; hmmm, I guess we'll take the average and say 3000 lbs for the armor.
So the answer is, yes this will work just fine on helicoptors, as long as you don't mind not carrying anything with you on your trip.
This is how you spell "losers," and you expect people to care what you think? Worse yet, your thinking is flawed: even though they are some of the most demanding users, gamers are rarely guilty of buying a processor based on arbitrary cpu benchmarks. They usually seek computers capable of fast, high-quality 3D graphics, and buy based on what's giving the best results in the games they actually play.
Yes, it's exactly as simple as you describe--if your goal is to help some[clueless]body with their security problems. If, on the other hand, your object is to advance your own career, you call the press. They are getting the hassles they deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the information is that that is speculation. So far, they're running at just under 2% fatal crashes, so 1% is certainly a reasonable number, but who can say for sure?
Fuck you very much.
sorry no mod points. +1 exactly right.
Lawyers? You really think that's necessary? I'll bet a politely-worded email to that nice Mr. Jeff Phucksum would be all it took to end this whole misunderstanding.
Well, maybe not. According to the article, this is intended as a weapon for use in situations where collateral damage should be minimized. It doesn't appear to be any easier to deliver, and almost certainly will be more expensive, than a conventional weapon of sufficient size to take out the intended target. The only difference is less people get killed and the building isn't leveled. I haven't noticed our enemies being especially sensitive to the issue of collateral damage.
So you see my point.
I'm completely O-fucking-T here, but look at what Slashdot moderation comes down to. This person expresses their one-line, unsubstantiated opinion (never claiming to be doing anything more--no offense to you, TeknoHog), and because he appears to be on the side of the angels, BOOM, +4 Insightful. This is stupid; what good does viewing at +3 or higher do with ridiculous moderation like this? (Well, it will save you seeing this post, I guess ;)
It's hopelessly OT to reply to your sig, but sadly it is true. I am at +2 now, but there are so many people posting sincere, but half-baked, crap at Score:2 that I fear I'll be pushing it up soon myself.
Most stores won't take back opened software. Did you buy it someplace that won't take back a sealed box, or have you broken the seal?
Fortunately, I no longer have to play that game. (I just wear what my wife tells me to ;)
Well, so far three people have modded this up as "interesting", which probably means "scary". That it is, but it's also sad and pathetic. This is about on a level with firing someone for what they wear while they're coding.
Robert Crandall (who ran American Airlines for over 12 years, and so should know) says that airlines have never earned back the cost of their capital. Their very existence, as a whole--which is to say excluding a few bright spots like Southwest Airlines--has been dependent upon the eagerness of new investors to dump ever more money into these losing operations. As in the case of Major League baseball teams, the panache of owning an airline is apparently worth a bunch of money to a few high-flying (ho ho ho) businessmen.
As for technology, private aviation's record here is spotty as well. The same major airlines who cry so bitterly about the FAA's ancient computers and antiquated systems are slow slow slow to buy anything new for their own operations (except for airframes, which are much sexier than a new GPS for your old DC9). The only group of flyers consistently on the cutting edge are the "crazy millionaires" in their bizjets, which always seem to have the latest and greatest in avionics.
I'm afraid that the more likely scenario is for the military to lead the way into space. The jet engine and radar were invented to make it easier to kill people who are trying to kill you first. The moon shots were all about a "space race" between superpowers. I suspect the way forward will again be shown by the Air Force--though I certainly hope I'm wrong.
Then, to compound the idiocy, the comment is modded up as "insightful."
It's enough to make you cry, isn't it? Maybe he thinks the cable company subscribes to Really Big Cable, then redistributes.
...is probably not too insightful. The really big numbers (in terms of sex partners) are put up by prostitutes, who may not feel lucky to be doing what they're doing.
More to the point--why don't we have them? Every other animal does.
I dunno. I tilt at my share of windmills, but this one just never pissed me off. Call me obtuse (oh wait--this is Slashdot--call me a lot worse than that).
Now that's funny. Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I've wondered that myself. As a country (and especially when a Republican is in the White House), we are the world's most prolific creators of irony. Ask yourself: blind luck, or masters of irony?
Now, let me give you a hypothetical (as they say in Texas): what if a law were passed requiring all persons to be assigned a rating--based on a number of societal factors like income, race, sex, age, etc.--that indicated the likelihood of their becoming involved in crime, and those ratings kept in a police database. Now everyone is subject to the same law. Is this equal protection? If so, is it what you had in mind?
Oh, amendments. You mean like the Equal Rights Amendment that rattled around state legislatures for 10 years and never got ratified? I guess the guys that wrote that one just wanted to make extra double sure that equal protection was in there, since according to you it's all covered.
No stress required. It comes through loud and clear from your statements.
What's that you say, genius? I couldn't hear you with your fucking karma turned down so low.
This couldn't possibly be Constitutional, could it?
Probably. There's no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, and Equal Protection is certainly not built in--at least not explicitly enough to have stopped slavery or given women sufferage.
That, and isn't this collection of data an unlawful search? Especially when the person in question has no criminal record?
Search of what? Your face? It's already been established that your car can be searched for no good reason--surely they can take your picture.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping tabs on people who have previously broken the law, as unfortunately many felons are repeat offenders. However, there's no way you can convince me that keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime is a fair idea.
Um, keeping tabs on felons because of high rates of recidivism is keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime.
Don't get me wrong--I repeat that this is a terrible idea. I also stress that IANAL. I would, however, be interested in hearing viewpoints from those who AAL on how to fight this, because I don't think we're off to a good start here.
According to this page, a Blackhawk weighs about 11800 lbs empty, and has a mission gross of roughly 16800 lbs. Subtracting about 2000 lbs for the 360 gallons of fuel the internal tanks will carry, we have about 3000 lbs to do what we want with. The article on the armor says it weighs a ton or two; hmmm, I guess we'll take the average and say 3000 lbs for the armor.
So the answer is, yes this will work just fine on helicoptors, as long as you don't mind not carrying anything with you on your trip.
This is how you spell "losers," and you expect people to care what you think? Worse yet, your thinking is flawed: even though they are some of the most demanding users, gamers are rarely guilty of buying a processor based on arbitrary cpu benchmarks. They usually seek computers capable of fast, high-quality 3D graphics, and buy based on what's giving the best results in the games they actually play.
Yes, it's exactly as simple as you describe--if your goal is to help some[clueless]body with their security problems. If, on the other hand, your object is to advance your own career, you call the press. They are getting the hassles they deserve.