There should always be respect for a processor with an EIEIO instruction.
When I was in industry and we (briefly) changed to PPC we had a field engineer come over and present the architecture etc.
And as luck would have it his name was MacDonald... He started by telling us all that, yes, the connection between his surname name and the EIEIO-insn had not been lost on his colleagues. In fact he heard it hummed in the corridors at least once a day when he walked by.:-)
Upper management probably *IS* nearly the same everywhere. Everywhere they go they're managing managers who are managing managers.
That's one way of seeing it. OTOH at that level they're also responsible for long term strategy. The stuff that determines if you're even there as a large company 3-5-10-15 years from now (depending on the field). And that's not easy (in fact its so difficult that most don't do it) and turning around a ship that size isn't easy either, so you have to stay ahead of the game.
So I'm not sure. I think that even at that level you have to know the business. Now, is that 90% of the work? No, it's more like 2%. The other 98% they're busy doing administration like all other managers, only on a higher level. But those 2% are not 2% of the value they bring to the table. More like 50%... (Or some such).
I think some of this arises from someone doing busy work and getting the feeling that they're making progress. Ie, create lots of classes, draw lots of lines between them, and it sort of looks like a design. Now you spend the next few months implementing the skeleton of all those classes, and then every time you go home it feels like you put in a good solid day at work, your boss looks at lines of code and you seem productive so you get a nice raise. If your fingers get sore from all that typing, then you just call a few meetings to start debating the merits of class naming, which patterns are missing that should be added, how to improve the whole process, and so on.
Yes! This is the biggest difference I've observed from using functional programming i large scale industry projects. The "easy" stuff is so easy and quickly dealt with that you can't get away with just treading water and doing busy work. You get exposed to the actual problem or a real computer science one much, much sooner. And there you are.
This is my own personal pet theory of why people find functional programming so "difficult". It doesn't provide you with the nice fuzzy feeling from the hand holding that busy work can provide you. You don't get to catch your breath fiddling with the scaffolding. You have to actually get the house built from the get go. And hiding your incompetence from the rest of the world/team/management is correspondingly more difficult as well.
And I think that is a large part of why Ericsson found it to be four to ten times a productive, even when using it with programmers with a C/C++ background and only a short conversion course under their belts. With smaller resulting code to boot, and better characteristics in terms of resilience, maintainability etc. (When we did interop tests with other manufacturers it was always us that changed our gear to match their (mis)understanding of the specs. We could have a change finished and rolled out in 30 minutes right there in the test facility, while they would invariably need a couple of hours, at least...)
I don't agree, however, that functional programming is an improvement. Functional programming is a migraine. In my experience, it usually causes things that are relatively trivial in procedural programming to turn into mounds of code. Everything that's bad about OOP is also bad about FP, just in different ways.
That's not necessarily true in practice. And I've seen it for myself.
But, and that's a big "but". It's been my observation that functional programming isn't "comfy" the same way that procedural programming is. With procedural languages you get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you've solved little problems and hurdles that the paradigm put in your way in the first place, and it feels like you've accomplished something, when you haven't actually move all that much closer to your end objective. With functional programming the easy stuff is so easy that's its over in five minutes and you very soon is exposed to either real computer science problems or the actual problem you're there to solve. There's no twiddling your thumbs while feeling and looking productive.
It's been my experience that its this effect that makes students and beginners feel like its hard, while in actual (measured) fact, it's easier and leads farther, sooner. But of course the flip side is that it weeds out poor programmers sooner, as they can only survive by only twiddling your thumbs.
P.S. And note that functional programs as measured at Ericsson tends to be equally shorter. I.e. four to ten times, for the same functionality delivered (with much better non-functionals, i.e. dependency, resilience etc.). And easier to read/maintain as well.
P.P.S. And also note that Ericsson isn't a zealot about it. There's plenty of e.g. 'C' etc. used as well. No-one is suggesting you should write a device driver in Erlang. But it's delegated to specialist tasks, as a small piece of the larger puzzle and an edge node in the architechture where it can shine, not a complex and centralised part, where it's the wrong tool for the job.
Just like going on a long hike if you are conditioned to it, it really isn't anymore dangerous.
Peeing only once in seven hours isn't dangerous to you? Not short term no, and not once in a while. But to say that that level of hydration and urination is good for your and A-OK is also a stretch.
You should both drink and piss more to stay safe in the long run, and I have that advice from a nephrologist.
Torture is useless when you create a person who fabricates anything to get you to stop. They will confess to everything, and admit everything, which is absolutely useless because you're left with the doubts of your suspicions being confirmed because they're true, or because the person made it up.
That is true, and it's often shortened to "torture doesn't work". But that's not entirely true either. There are (unfortunately) specific circumstances when torture works. In situations where you can easily and quickly verify the information you get from the subject, but not get it any other way, and you have the torture subject "on-line", i.e. can "turn up the heat" if the information is incorrect, torture works only too well.
These situations aren't that common if you're a state trying to root out dissidents, and hence torture has fallen out of favour for those uses. However, criminals wanting to know the combination to the safe from the poor owner, they often do use torture, and too good effect. In that case all the prerequisites are of course fulfilled. They can quickly and easily check if they have the right information, and immediately turn progressively nastier if they're lied to.
In fact, this same scenario was why time locks were invented for bank vaults and safes. With a time lock you can't take the bank managers family hostage in the middle of the night for good effect as there is no way, even for the manager, to open the safe then. It has to be operated during the day, and then that whole type of attack becomes much more difficult to pull off.
So when we're talking crypto, they don't call it "rubber hose cryptanalysis" for nothing. In the case of "tell me your key" torture, or other types of pressure (i.e. held in contempt of court) can work very well.
Or you could educate yourself, then you wouldn't confuse the usage with any particular man's (or woman's for that matter) anus.
Knowing the car industry, the parent is correct in their use of anally (retentive) when it comes to cutting cost-per-vehicle at all cost. They chase cents with a straight face, even though the car cost you tens of thousands of dollars. And for good reason. In many instances the car itself is mainly a loss leader to be able to sell service and spare parts. That's where the (at least main) income is. The margins in the car industry today are razor thin.
Don't get your hopes up. Cost of maritime shipping is not critical for the final price for many/most goods (ca $2500 for a container from largest Chines port to either LA or New York). Shipping on a large container ship (and they're only getting larger) is ridiculously efficient. A large container ship is e.g. ca 15 times more efficient than a heavy truck on a highway.
Bunker fuel is also the cheapest of fossil fuels. Ships can and do burn the slop that no-one else wants much.
So, while everyone's trying to make a buck, the trucks to and from the port burns almost all the fuel that gets burnt for e.g. that T-shirt in your store.
No, I'm leaning towards that myself. But the question is when. And whether we'll still be calling them "missiles" at that point, or "drones".
A few things need to happen for that to become true though, especially for long range missiles. If you know they are there, the fighter with any sort of manoeuvrability can easily escape them as they're flying too fast with no engine power to manoeuvre at the end of their range. So you'd need a missiles that could sneak up on a fighter at long range, and then still be slow enough (or with enough fuel left to do violent manoeuvres).
And of course to even fire a BVR missile today you'd need a different level of battlefield awareness than is common today, or you'll be shooting far too many of your own aircraft out of the sky.
So, while i think "missile trucks" will come about at some point in time, I think that time is quite a bit into the future.
Nah, that's interpreting "dog fighting" too narrowly. Say "fighter" instead. Whether you excel at the turning or "energy" fight doesn't matter that much as long as you can do one of them convincingly. (The F35 can't BTW). So while the P38 wasn't a turning fighter (though there are stories of P38-pilots out turning Me109s over Africa by using differential trust), it was a very capable energy fighter.
When we talk about the F35's inability to "dogfight" we're talking about its inability to handle a manoeuvring fight, as opposed to a "missile truck" fight. (And coincidentally, with the advent of missiles, turning to outmanoeuvre them has become a more important aspect. An "energy" move in a missile fight is likely to get you killed today, when it would have allowed you to escape in WWII.)
There are many people who don't believe in the "missile truck" concept, for quite reasonable reasons, but we'll see. Or rather, we hopefully won't see...
Sure they can. And they do exist within the US as well, don't get me wrong.
However, the USian is much, much more accustomed to moving great distances for school, and work. Clear across the continent in many cases. And even though there are differences in language, culture etc. even within the "same" culture (e.g. WASP), they are generally easier to overcome. People expect them to be easy to overcome.
And the TV-shows that are popular are the same in both places. It's the same network. That's perhaps the most striking display of "sameness" that's not at all present in Europe. Well, unless it's an American show, like "Game of Thrones"...
Free movement of labour and capital are the foundation of the EU.
Yes. But it had to be made explicit since it isn't natural. And even with the EU forcing the issue it still doesn't work that well, for labour at least, since there are the two large barriers of culture and language to overcome. The cultural and language differences within the US are minuscule compared to the differences between even many neighbouring countries within the EU with a long history.
So in the US you have "true" and "natural" mobility, in the EU its very much artificial, forced and doesn't work nearly as well.
But the US started from a much higher level. US literacy rates for example has 10% illiterate at 1900, while the Russian literacy rate at 1917 is 45% in 1917. That's not a small difference.
It's actually hard to underestimate the general level of poverty, lack of education, and general state of affairs for the Russian population in Tsarist Russia. The US started off much better off so you'd expect it to come out ahead.
What difference does it makes that the company is limited liability? No one is likely to experience any liability for their political speech. This is just a group of people using their commonly-owned property and connections to spread their views. Whether the corporation is limited liability is irrelevant.
The fact that you can own and use "stuff" together while not having being liable for the problems said ownership and use might entail is a special exception to the normal state of affairs granted by the society. We make this exception because we deem the benefits outweigh the cost (and there is a cost, make no mistake about it). In order to make this exception we burden the limited partnership with rules and regulations that must be followed in order for us to grant the exception.
It is not therefore unreasonable to say that one such limitation on what the limited partnership can do is promote political speech. We give them extra power for certain purposes, to say that one of those purposes should not be to try and subvert the very mechanism that grants that privilege isn't on the face of it unreasonable.
So, no-one is trying to limit the speech of the partners as such. They have their rights as individuals. And if they want to band together in a partnership to increase their clout, then that's OK to. We tend to historically call such partnerships "political parties". But if they want to use the extra power the we have given them in the form of limited liability partnerships, then it's not unreasonable to say "no". If you want to use a regular partnership, go ahead, but the extra power that goes with a limited partnership is barred from such use. It's not part of the original deal.
So, my point is that people seem to think of limited liability partnerships as fine, normal and dandy, just because they've been around for a couple of generations. They're not. They're a very special exception from how things are normally and how they are "supposed" to be, and that makes them special not only in the extra power that comes with them, but also, not unreasonably, with extra limitations and duties.
They are not "people", and shouldn't be treated as such, and real people can't use them for whatever they fancy. That's not necessarily in the contract.
You do not lose your rights to free speech and petitioning the government if you form a corporation. These rights are not taken away.
A corporation does not inherently have rights. You still do.
Exactly. But whether you should be allowed to use the machinery of a limited liability company to spread those views (even if you own a majority of the shares), that's a different ball of wax altogether.
Just because you're allowed to publicly state your opinion doesn't mean you're allowed to use a megaphone to do it at all hours of the night. And funnily enough, when the police writes you a citation, no-one seems to think that your first amendment rights were infringed (much) in the process. (Yes, that's not a terribly good analogy, but it does show that in many circumstances, while you're allowed your opinion, the means to spread it however you want aren't necessarily allowed).
Had two of the eight helicopters in Operation Eagle Claw failed instead of three, he'd be remembered very differently.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Eagle Claw was a horribly complex affair that probably wouldn't have worked anyway. It's highly probable, that with more helicopters available it would just have failed later, with more spectacular casualties.
As a matter of fact, the failure led to sweeping changes in the US special operations community, leading directly to the establishment of SOCOM. This wouldn't have happened if the operation had failed just because of a couple of helicopters with poor maintenance record. Instead the powers that be could no longer ignore the glaring problems and lack of capability at all levels of the US military establishment when it came to operations like this, and a whole command was established to deal with them.
I'm not really sure it matters much, truth be told. Legally owned guns aren't used in crimes much, so deaths (not including suicides) are basically anomalies.
Just for comparison I ran the numbers of deaths versus number of gang members comparing the US and Sweden, and, between thumb and forefinger, they correlate very well. The reason we're having so much better murder rater figures than you then being that we have so much fewer gangs and gang members. The ones we do have though seem to shoot each other at about the same frequency.
Of course our gun legislation is much, much stricter than yours. As it happens though, the guns used in "the settling of scores between known criminals" aren't legally owned, have never been legally owned, and are of types that couldn't be legally owned (for the most part). So restricting legal guns would have little to no impact on that.
So, in summary, there's much to suggest you have many severe problems, but that legal gun ownership doesn't much factor into the equation. It doesn't much in any other country in the west so it's not a big stretch.
So if you want to turn it around, focusing on guns is the lazy analysis and solution. In all probability, even an Australian/UK "ban" wouldn't change much at all.
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force,... many police would be alive right now.
Reports are that Micah Johnson was armed with an SKS. The SKS wasn't affected by the "Clinton assault weapon ban" as it didn't (by and large) fit the criteria set out. As a matter of fact it's still legal in California...
But it doesn't really matter. A shotgun and and a can of gasoline would let you do the same thing. Or just the can of gasoline.
So, if you think you'll change anything material by outlawing semi automatic long guns with large capacity magazines, my money is on you waking up very disappointed one day. Remember, after all, and the statistics are very clear on this: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people..." Though not as much as you used to. Your rates are declining and that's despite owning more guns than ever.
Unless you mean the ASVAB test we took before going to boot camp
Bingo! All armed forces have a similar test (I took a similar one here in Sweden when mustering) and since they measure (at least) crystallised intelligence, they can be, and have been, correlated with more traditional intelligence tests.
Since many take such tests, they're a useful source of data for many questions about how mental aptitude is affected by various factors. When we scrapped national service here in Sweden in 2010, it was lamented by researchers in the area, as they no longer would have access to data from all males aged 18 every year.
And the military spends quite some effort in identifying the "geniuses" as they are few and far between, and you don't want them to end up in tents, but in more qualified positions (babying missile electronics and whatnot). Cannon fodder is, relatively speaking, much easier to come by.
Anyway - a little off-topic... let me try to pull it back on topic. Slack was the first distro I ever loaded back in the 90s. I downloaded it to several (20ish?) 3.5" disks at my job (after school job doing tech support at a local ISP)... got them all home and tried to install it and guess what? Yep. One of those disks was corrupted. Took two more tries before I was able to get it going... but my mind was permanently BLOWN once I got it working:-)
That happened to all of us I think. At least I haven't met anyone that it didn't happen to. You sat there copying your floppies (the cheapest available, since you were poor) at uni and when trying to install back home number 23 was always broken. So back to school in the rain. Twice!:-)
Just...no. There is a fixed amount of energy available to airborne objects in a dogfight, and most of it comes from the initial velocities of the objects at the start of the encounter.
Which is (somewhat) true and doesn't invalidate what the original poster said. The implications means you're both right and both wrong, as it means that close in a missile can have a manoeuvring advantage as it's slow, has lots of engine thrust left (no, it's not only the initial energy that counts, far from it, a slow missile manoeuvres by pointing it's motor in the opposite direction of travel). That said, since it's chasing something, it has to be able to pull much higher Gs to just keep up.
At longer BWR ranges though, the tide turns. The missile has burned out and is moving very fast, so an aircraft with any agility (fighter) can easily outmanoeuvre the missile by just turning perpendicular to the missile's flight path--since the missile has to pull a large lead if it is to have any hope of hitting the aircraft--and then make an out of plane manoeuvre (dive) when the missile has committed. It'll overshoot by a "mile".
This is an inherent problem with long range missiles today, i.e. they're too fast and has no ability to manoeuvre at the end of their range envelope. (Note that it's not a question of energy, they have plenty of energy, they just can't turn it into useful work.)
The hypothetic, non-disposable, missiles you hypothesise about, are just that for now, i.e. hypothetical, and I can't see that anybody would bother with them, for a whole host of reasons.
While I have no doubt that "missiles" will eventually soundly beat fighters and make them in some sense obsolete, we won't be calling them "missiles" at that point, but "drones", and they'll look much more like today's fighters than today's missiles. The basic laws of aerodynamics will see to that. A rocket motor in a tube, ain't it...
It worked fine when I had WiMax. LTE would not be available today if it were not for WiMax lighting a fire under the rear ends of the 3G people. They did an effective job of tying up the carriers in order to kill WiMax (in the US and Europe at least). This is why LTE falls so short of its design targets. It was rushed out to crush the threat from WiMax.
Well, I think you're probably a bit too coloured by your background. I was at the other side, i.e. the telecoms side, and while it is true that 3G+ and 4G standards were affected by WiMax, and while WiMax was initially very scary, when we learned of the standard we all let out a collective sigh of relief.
The main thing we were "afraid" of was cost, i.e. that WiMax would come out much cheaper, and sweep away the high margins of telecoms over night. The way to do that would have been the same way that datacom beat telecom, i.e. make do with much less. Cut away lots of the added features that no-one really wanted badly enough to pay for anyway, and do the cheap and easy 80% instead.
The way to do that with WiMax would have been to cut away mobility and roaming. Having to communicate with a moving terminal (both within a cell and between cells) is what adds all the fundamental complexity to wireless telecoms. If you cut away those two to start, then the problem becomes much simpler. But of course, WiMax suffered from the "second systems effect" compared to WiFi. So WiMax tried to be everything that mobile telecoms already was. They added all the complexities to the standard and hence missed the boat. As soon as that was realised, we realised that there wasn't really any "threat" per se. They'd need years to get to where we were already at, and they'd have to spend the same money/resources to get there.
Now of course, I'm also coloured by my background from building mobile internet boxes for Ericsson way back when, and I would actually have liked WiMax to shake things up a little (coming from the datacom side myself), but it's no accident that while the WiFi side is alive and healthy, WiMax went the way of the Dodo fast.
Oh and P.S. with current 4G you have exactly what you ask for. I.e. data with IP based voice on top. If anybody had implemented that, which most/many haven't. Most nets are actually 4G data only with no support for IPMMS, falling back to 3G for voice. 3G is the last system with separate voice and data channels.
Tell me about an individual going into a night club and killing 50 people with a pocket knife.
If we substitute knife for petrol and bus for night club, will that do? (A knife or axe in that scenario comes in handy to stop and deter being bum rushed from the people who, understandably, aren't too keen on being burned.)
After all, guns don't kill people, Americans with guns kill people. And in China it's petrol instead (and it's not an isolated incident). So, I'm not sure that reducing the access to guns in the US would make much of a difference.
We have very strict gun legislation here in Sweden, and that hasn't stopped criminals from getting AK47's with which to shoot up their neighbourhoods. (In fact when I control for the number of gang members, Swedish and US gun violence looks very similar. We just don't have nearly as many gang members).
So, whether you look at mass shootings or general level of violence, I agree you have a problem, but I'm unconvinced you have a gun problem per se. (And even if you banned the ownership of guns overnight, what would you do with the roughly one gun per person in the US that are already out there? They're not going to go away.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can Get-Help -examples to skip directly to syntax examples, and I'm moved on to the next step before I've gotten half-way through a man [page]...
OK, let's try: "man awk" in man browser window (less) type "/examples" and there they are...
Yes, clearly inferior, slower and much more inelegant...
There should always be respect for a processor with an EIEIO instruction.
When I was in industry and we (briefly) changed to PPC we had a field engineer come over and present the architecture etc.
And as luck would have it his name was MacDonald... He started by telling us all that, yes, the connection between his surname name and the EIEIO-insn had not been lost on his colleagues. In fact he heard it hummed in the corridors at least once a day when he walked by. :-)
Upper management probably *IS* nearly the same everywhere. Everywhere they go they're managing managers who are managing managers.
That's one way of seeing it. OTOH at that level they're also responsible for long term strategy. The stuff that determines if you're even there as a large company 3-5-10-15 years from now (depending on the field). And that's not easy (in fact its so difficult that most don't do it) and turning around a ship that size isn't easy either, so you have to stay ahead of the game.
So I'm not sure. I think that even at that level you have to know the business. Now, is that 90% of the work? No, it's more like 2%. The other 98% they're busy doing administration like all other managers, only on a higher level. But those 2% are not 2% of the value they bring to the table. More like 50%... (Or some such).
I think some of this arises from someone doing busy work and getting the feeling that they're making progress. Ie, create lots of classes, draw lots of lines between them, and it sort of looks like a design. Now you spend the next few months implementing the skeleton of all those classes, and then every time you go home it feels like you put in a good solid day at work, your boss looks at lines of code and you seem productive so you get a nice raise. If your fingers get sore from all that typing, then you just call a few meetings to start debating the merits of class naming, which patterns are missing that should be added, how to improve the whole process, and so on.
Yes! This is the biggest difference I've observed from using functional programming i large scale industry projects. The "easy" stuff is so easy and quickly dealt with that you can't get away with just treading water and doing busy work. You get exposed to the actual problem or a real computer science one much, much sooner. And there you are.
This is my own personal pet theory of why people find functional programming so "difficult". It doesn't provide you with the nice fuzzy feeling from the hand holding that busy work can provide you. You don't get to catch your breath fiddling with the scaffolding. You have to actually get the house built from the get go. And hiding your incompetence from the rest of the world/team/management is correspondingly more difficult as well.
And I think that is a large part of why Ericsson found it to be four to ten times a productive, even when using it with programmers with a C/C++ background and only a short conversion course under their belts. With smaller resulting code to boot, and better characteristics in terms of resilience, maintainability etc. (When we did interop tests with other manufacturers it was always us that changed our gear to match their (mis)understanding of the specs. We could have a change finished and rolled out in 30 minutes right there in the test facility, while they would invariably need a couple of hours, at least...)
I don't agree, however, that functional programming is an improvement. Functional programming is a migraine. In my experience, it usually causes things that are relatively trivial in procedural programming to turn into mounds of code. Everything that's bad about OOP is also bad about FP, just in different ways.
That's not necessarily true in practice. And I've seen it for myself.
But, and that's a big "but". It's been my observation that functional programming isn't "comfy" the same way that procedural programming is. With procedural languages you get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you've solved little problems and hurdles that the paradigm put in your way in the first place, and it feels like you've accomplished something, when you haven't actually move all that much closer to your end objective. With functional programming the easy stuff is so easy that's its over in five minutes and you very soon is exposed to either real computer science problems or the actual problem you're there to solve. There's no twiddling your thumbs while feeling and looking productive.
It's been my experience that its this effect that makes students and beginners feel like its hard, while in actual (measured) fact, it's easier and leads farther, sooner. But of course the flip side is that it weeds out poor programmers sooner, as they can only survive by only twiddling your thumbs.
P.S. And note that functional programs as measured at Ericsson tends to be equally shorter. I.e. four to ten times, for the same functionality delivered (with much better non-functionals, i.e. dependency, resilience etc.). And easier to read/maintain as well.
P.P.S. And also note that Ericsson isn't a zealot about it. There's plenty of e.g. 'C' etc. used as well. No-one is suggesting you should write a device driver in Erlang. But it's delegated to specialist tasks, as a small piece of the larger puzzle and an edge node in the architechture where it can shine, not a complex and centralised part, where it's the wrong tool for the job.
Just like going on a long hike if you are conditioned to it, it really isn't anymore dangerous.
Peeing only once in seven hours isn't dangerous to you? Not short term no, and not once in a while. But to say that that level of hydration and urination is good for your and A-OK is also a stretch.
You should both drink and piss more to stay safe in the long run, and I have that advice from a nephrologist.
Torture is useless when you create a person who fabricates anything to get you to stop. They will confess to everything, and admit everything, which is absolutely useless because you're left with the doubts of your suspicions being confirmed because they're true, or because the person made it up.
That is true, and it's often shortened to "torture doesn't work". But that's not entirely true either. There are (unfortunately) specific circumstances when torture works. In situations where you can easily and quickly verify the information you get from the subject, but not get it any other way, and you have the torture subject "on-line", i.e. can "turn up the heat" if the information is incorrect, torture works only too well.
These situations aren't that common if you're a state trying to root out dissidents, and hence torture has fallen out of favour for those uses. However, criminals wanting to know the combination to the safe from the poor owner, they often do use torture, and too good effect. In that case all the prerequisites are of course fulfilled. They can quickly and easily check if they have the right information, and immediately turn progressively nastier if they're lied to.
In fact, this same scenario was why time locks were invented for bank vaults and safes. With a time lock you can't take the bank managers family hostage in the middle of the night for good effect as there is no way, even for the manager, to open the safe then. It has to be operated during the day, and then that whole type of attack becomes much more difficult to pull off.
So when we're talking crypto, they don't call it "rubber hose cryptanalysis" for nothing. In the case of "tell me your key" torture, or other types of pressure (i.e. held in contempt of court) can work very well.
Or you could educate yourself, then you wouldn't confuse the usage with any particular man's (or woman's for that matter) anus.
Knowing the car industry, the parent is correct in their use of anally (retentive) when it comes to cutting cost-per-vehicle at all cost. They chase cents with a straight face, even though the car cost you tens of thousands of dollars. And for good reason. In many instances the car itself is mainly a loss leader to be able to sell service and spare parts. That's where the (at least main) income is. The margins in the car industry today are razor thin.
Don't get your hopes up. Cost of maritime shipping is not critical for the final price for many/most goods (ca $2500 for a container from largest Chines port to either LA or New York). Shipping on a large container ship (and they're only getting larger) is ridiculously efficient. A large container ship is e.g. ca 15 times more efficient than a heavy truck on a highway.
Bunker fuel is also the cheapest of fossil fuels. Ships can and do burn the slop that no-one else wants much.
So, while everyone's trying to make a buck, the trucks to and from the port burns almost all the fuel that gets burnt for e.g. that T-shirt in your store.
No, I'm leaning towards that myself. But the question is when. And whether we'll still be calling them "missiles" at that point, or "drones".
A few things need to happen for that to become true though, especially for long range missiles. If you know they are there, the fighter with any sort of manoeuvrability can easily escape them as they're flying too fast with no engine power to manoeuvre at the end of their range. So you'd need a missiles that could sneak up on a fighter at long range, and then still be slow enough (or with enough fuel left to do violent manoeuvres).
And of course to even fire a BVR missile today you'd need a different level of battlefield awareness than is common today, or you'll be shooting far too many of your own aircraft out of the sky.
So, while i think "missile trucks" will come about at some point in time, I think that time is quite a bit into the future.
Nah, that's interpreting "dog fighting" too narrowly. Say "fighter" instead. Whether you excel at the turning or "energy" fight doesn't matter that much as long as you can do one of them convincingly. (The F35 can't BTW). So while the P38 wasn't a turning fighter (though there are stories of P38-pilots out turning Me109s over Africa by using differential trust), it was a very capable energy fighter.
When we talk about the F35's inability to "dogfight" we're talking about its inability to handle a manoeuvring fight, as opposed to a "missile truck" fight. (And coincidentally, with the advent of missiles, turning to outmanoeuvre them has become a more important aspect. An "energy" move in a missile fight is likely to get you killed today, when it would have allowed you to escape in WWII.)
There are many people who don't believe in the "missile truck" concept, for quite reasonable reasons, but we'll see. Or rather, we hopefully won't see...
Sure they can. And they do exist within the US as well, don't get me wrong.
However, the USian is much, much more accustomed to moving great distances for school, and work. Clear across the continent in many cases. And even though there are differences in language, culture etc. even within the "same" culture (e.g. WASP), they are generally easier to overcome. People expect them to be easy to overcome.
And the TV-shows that are popular are the same in both places. It's the same network. That's perhaps the most striking display of "sameness" that's not at all present in Europe. Well, unless it's an American show, like "Game of Thrones"...
Free movement of labour and capital are the foundation of the EU.
Yes. But it had to be made explicit since it isn't natural. And even with the EU forcing the issue it still doesn't work that well, for labour at least, since there are the two large barriers of culture and language to overcome. The cultural and language differences within the US are minuscule compared to the differences between even many neighbouring countries within the EU with a long history.
So in the US you have "true" and "natural" mobility, in the EU its very much artificial, forced and doesn't work nearly as well.
But the US started from a much higher level. US literacy rates for example has 10% illiterate at 1900, while the Russian literacy rate at 1917 is 45% in 1917. That's not a small difference.
It's actually hard to underestimate the general level of poverty, lack of education, and general state of affairs for the Russian population in Tsarist Russia. The US started off much better off so you'd expect it to come out ahead.
There's of course nothing stopping you from putting your own firewall/router/whatever inside Google's. So no "full access" required.
What difference does it makes that the company is limited liability? No one is likely to experience any liability for their political speech. This is just a group of people using their commonly-owned property and connections to spread their views. Whether the corporation is limited liability is irrelevant.
The fact that you can own and use "stuff" together while not having being liable for the problems said ownership and use might entail is a special exception to the normal state of affairs granted by the society. We make this exception because we deem the benefits outweigh the cost (and there is a cost, make no mistake about it). In order to make this exception we burden the limited partnership with rules and regulations that must be followed in order for us to grant the exception.
It is not therefore unreasonable to say that one such limitation on what the limited partnership can do is promote political speech. We give them extra power for certain purposes, to say that one of those purposes should not be to try and subvert the very mechanism that grants that privilege isn't on the face of it unreasonable.
So, no-one is trying to limit the speech of the partners as such. They have their rights as individuals. And if they want to band together in a partnership to increase their clout, then that's OK to. We tend to historically call such partnerships "political parties". But if they want to use the extra power the we have given them in the form of limited liability partnerships, then it's not unreasonable to say "no". If you want to use a regular partnership, go ahead, but the extra power that goes with a limited partnership is barred from such use. It's not part of the original deal.
So, my point is that people seem to think of limited liability partnerships as fine, normal and dandy, just because they've been around for a couple of generations. They're not. They're a very special exception from how things are normally and how they are "supposed" to be, and that makes them special not only in the extra power that comes with them, but also, not unreasonably, with extra limitations and duties.
They are not "people", and shouldn't be treated as such, and real people can't use them for whatever they fancy. That's not necessarily in the contract.
You do not lose your rights to free speech and petitioning the government if you form a corporation. These rights are not taken away. A corporation does not inherently have rights. You still do.
Exactly. But whether you should be allowed to use the machinery of a limited liability company to spread those views (even if you own a majority of the shares), that's a different ball of wax altogether.
Just because you're allowed to publicly state your opinion doesn't mean you're allowed to use a megaphone to do it at all hours of the night. And funnily enough, when the police writes you a citation, no-one seems to think that your first amendment rights were infringed (much) in the process. (Yes, that's not a terribly good analogy, but it does show that in many circumstances, while you're allowed your opinion, the means to spread it however you want aren't necessarily allowed).
Had two of the eight helicopters in Operation Eagle Claw failed instead of three, he'd be remembered very differently.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Eagle Claw was a horribly complex affair that probably wouldn't have worked anyway. It's highly probable, that with more helicopters available it would just have failed later, with more spectacular casualties.
As a matter of fact, the failure led to sweeping changes in the US special operations community, leading directly to the establishment of SOCOM. This wouldn't have happened if the operation had failed just because of a couple of helicopters with poor maintenance record. Instead the powers that be could no longer ignore the glaring problems and lack of capability at all levels of the US military establishment when it came to operations like this, and a whole command was established to deal with them.
I'm not really sure it matters much, truth be told. Legally owned guns aren't used in crimes much, so deaths (not including suicides) are basically anomalies.
Just for comparison I ran the numbers of deaths versus number of gang members comparing the US and Sweden, and, between thumb and forefinger, they correlate very well. The reason we're having so much better murder rater figures than you then being that we have so much fewer gangs and gang members. The ones we do have though seem to shoot each other at about the same frequency.
Of course our gun legislation is much, much stricter than yours. As it happens though, the guns used in "the settling of scores between known criminals" aren't legally owned, have never been legally owned, and are of types that couldn't be legally owned (for the most part). So restricting legal guns would have little to no impact on that.
So, in summary, there's much to suggest you have many severe problems, but that legal gun ownership doesn't much factor into the equation. It doesn't much in any other country in the west so it's not a big stretch.
So if you want to turn it around, focusing on guns is the lazy analysis and solution. In all probability, even an Australian/UK "ban" wouldn't change much at all.
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, ... many police would be alive right now.
Reports are that Micah Johnson was armed with an SKS. The SKS wasn't affected by the "Clinton assault weapon ban" as it didn't (by and large) fit the criteria set out. As a matter of fact it's still legal in California...
But it doesn't really matter. A shotgun and and a can of gasoline would let you do the same thing. Or just the can of gasoline.
So, if you think you'll change anything material by outlawing semi automatic long guns with large capacity magazines, my money is on you waking up very disappointed one day. Remember, after all, and the statistics are very clear on this: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people..." Though not as much as you used to. Your rates are declining and that's despite owning more guns than ever.
Unless you mean the ASVAB test we took before going to boot camp
Bingo! All armed forces have a similar test (I took a similar one here in Sweden when mustering) and since they measure (at least) crystallised intelligence, they can be, and have been, correlated with more traditional intelligence tests.
Since many take such tests, they're a useful source of data for many questions about how mental aptitude is affected by various factors. When we scrapped national service here in Sweden in 2010, it was lamented by researchers in the area, as they no longer would have access to data from all males aged 18 every year.
And the military spends quite some effort in identifying the "geniuses" as they are few and far between, and you don't want them to end up in tents, but in more qualified positions (babying missile electronics and whatnot). Cannon fodder is, relatively speaking, much easier to come by.
Anyway - a little off-topic... let me try to pull it back on topic. Slack was the first distro I ever loaded back in the 90s. I downloaded it to several (20ish?) 3.5" disks at my job (after school job doing tech support at a local ISP)... got them all home and tried to install it and guess what? Yep. One of those disks was corrupted. Took two more tries before I was able to get it going... but my mind was permanently BLOWN once I got it working :-)
That happened to all of us I think. At least I haven't met anyone that it didn't happen to. You sat there copying your floppies (the cheapest available, since you were poor) at uni and when trying to install back home number 23 was always broken. So back to school in the rain. Twice! :-)
Just...no. There is a fixed amount of energy available to airborne objects in a dogfight, and most of it comes from the initial velocities of the objects at the start of the encounter.
Which is (somewhat) true and doesn't invalidate what the original poster said. The implications means you're both right and both wrong, as it means that close in a missile can have a manoeuvring advantage as it's slow, has lots of engine thrust left (no, it's not only the initial energy that counts, far from it, a slow missile manoeuvres by pointing it's motor in the opposite direction of travel). That said, since it's chasing something, it has to be able to pull much higher Gs to just keep up.
At longer BWR ranges though, the tide turns. The missile has burned out and is moving very fast, so an aircraft with any agility (fighter) can easily outmanoeuvre the missile by just turning perpendicular to the missile's flight path--since the missile has to pull a large lead if it is to have any hope of hitting the aircraft--and then make an out of plane manoeuvre (dive) when the missile has committed. It'll overshoot by a "mile".
This is an inherent problem with long range missiles today, i.e. they're too fast and has no ability to manoeuvre at the end of their range envelope. (Note that it's not a question of energy, they have plenty of energy, they just can't turn it into useful work.)
The hypothetic, non-disposable, missiles you hypothesise about, are just that for now, i.e. hypothetical, and I can't see that anybody would bother with them, for a whole host of reasons.
While I have no doubt that "missiles" will eventually soundly beat fighters and make them in some sense obsolete, we won't be calling them "missiles" at that point, but "drones", and they'll look much more like today's fighters than today's missiles. The basic laws of aerodynamics will see to that. A rocket motor in a tube, ain't it...
It worked fine when I had WiMax. LTE would not be available today if it were not for WiMax lighting a fire under the rear ends of the 3G people. They did an effective job of tying up the carriers in order to kill WiMax (in the US and Europe at least). This is why LTE falls so short of its design targets. It was rushed out to crush the threat from WiMax.
Well, I think you're probably a bit too coloured by your background. I was at the other side, i.e. the telecoms side, and while it is true that 3G+ and 4G standards were affected by WiMax, and while WiMax was initially very scary, when we learned of the standard we all let out a collective sigh of relief.
The main thing we were "afraid" of was cost, i.e. that WiMax would come out much cheaper, and sweep away the high margins of telecoms over night. The way to do that would have been the same way that datacom beat telecom, i.e. make do with much less. Cut away lots of the added features that no-one really wanted badly enough to pay for anyway, and do the cheap and easy 80% instead.
The way to do that with WiMax would have been to cut away mobility and roaming. Having to communicate with a moving terminal (both within a cell and between cells) is what adds all the fundamental complexity to wireless telecoms. If you cut away those two to start, then the problem becomes much simpler. But of course, WiMax suffered from the "second systems effect" compared to WiFi. So WiMax tried to be everything that mobile telecoms already was. They added all the complexities to the standard and hence missed the boat. As soon as that was realised, we realised that there wasn't really any "threat" per se. They'd need years to get to where we were already at, and they'd have to spend the same money/resources to get there.
Now of course, I'm also coloured by my background from building mobile internet boxes for Ericsson way back when, and I would actually have liked WiMax to shake things up a little (coming from the datacom side myself), but it's no accident that while the WiFi side is alive and healthy, WiMax went the way of the Dodo fast.
Oh and P.S. with current 4G you have exactly what you ask for. I.e. data with IP based voice on top. If anybody had implemented that, which most/many haven't. Most nets are actually 4G data only with no support for IPMMS, falling back to 3G for voice. 3G is the last system with separate voice and data channels.
Tell me about an individual going into a night club and killing 50 people with a pocket knife.
If we substitute knife for petrol and bus for night club, will that do? (A knife or axe in that scenario comes in handy to stop and deter being bum rushed from the people who, understandably, aren't too keen on being burned.)
After all, guns don't kill people, Americans with guns kill people. And in China it's petrol instead (and it's not an isolated incident). So, I'm not sure that reducing the access to guns in the US would make much of a difference.
We have very strict gun legislation here in Sweden, and that hasn't stopped criminals from getting AK47's with which to shoot up their neighbourhoods. (In fact when I control for the number of gang members, Swedish and US gun violence looks very similar. We just don't have nearly as many gang members).
So, whether you look at mass shootings or general level of violence, I agree you have a problem, but I'm unconvinced you have a gun problem per se. (And even if you banned the ownership of guns overnight, what would you do with the roughly one gun per person in the US that are already out there? They're not going to go away.)