I agree, some kind of memory partitioning would make some sense.
People say "there's no reason why you shouldn't use all your ram"... the problem is that if all this shit is using it up then it isn't free for when I want to launch something that is going to gobble 4 gigs.... justifiably.
The thing I find the most distressing is that the ram numbers don't add up anymore. Even if you add all the categories of ram together it doesn't make any sense. Windows fragments the list of ram usage into "working", "private", etc... and so its hard to know ALL the ram X is using. I've found system services are often gobbling a gig or two.
Windows ram management is shit frankly... at least to the extent that it wastes ram profligately. If they actually reduced the ram a program got when they needed more ram for something else, I'd say fine. But in practice it doesn't happen.
Actually the biggest change they can cite is that in some areas the average water consumption per person went from 170 gallons to 150 gallons... and that's only a in a couple places. Most places the average water use per person remains 170 gallons.
Look at your data.
As to words used... we're talking about water infrastructure. If that blows your tiny little mind that isn't my problem. It is obvious that you need not only storage but some source to supply that storage.
As to your petty whining at getting raped by the facts. I warned you.
Next time don't ask for what's in the box.
I won't be responding to you again in this thread.
... gaming mostly. But it happened in other situations. I'm a really heavy multitasker. I have dozens of programs running at the same time. Long story short, 16 gigs needed to happen to make the pain go away.
as to tanks doing better with infantry, obviously combined arms is superior. Those arms however do contain tanks and air craft as well as infantry.
As to the eastern european situation: We apparently gave the Poles high level access to the First World's military industrial complex https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thermal pixels cover the tank so it can vanish on thermal optics.
Look at that tank again... it's a night fighter... a smoke fighter. When vision is poor in tanks they switch to thermal optics. This thing will just vanish.
And you remember that first video I sent you with the Poles attacking German tanks on horse back in WW2? The Poles have a "never again" mentality on the whole thing.
Just sort of interesting what ol' Putin is baiting.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. If you are arguing for combined arms then we have no disagreement.
Not entirely true that air power cannot secure an area. Its just that you can't use anything other than specialized ground attack aircraft.
Understand what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about fighter bombers. I'm talking about AC130 gunships, A10s, and some of the heavier attack helecopters.
There are many incidents of large ground attacks occuring and without any ground units what so ever, the entire attack either turned around, stopped, or obliterated by air power.
If you do that and make it clear you can do it again whenever you feel like it... then you can hold the territory with air power.
This was one of the many mistakes the US made with its various projects over the last few years. What we should have offered was heavy air support. The ground forces get backed up by the heavy air support. No need to give the Iraqis heavy weapons etc. You give them machine guns, tell them to lay out sand bags, and then give them radios. They get into trouble... they hold their ground, call in support, and hell rains on the enemy.
That is ignoring the MANY other problems with these countries and the impossibility of keeping Iraq one country without someone like saddam occasionally gasing large portions of the population to maintain the status quo. A lot of that is as pointless appeasement of Turkey. The whole Kurdish situation. We should have worked it out with the Turks in clear terms... aka "this is going to happen, we understand you don't like it, is there anything we can do or promise to make you less inclined to be pricks about it?" And if not, then go ahead and do it anyway. Iraq has to be split up.
((Forgive the style of this, I'm bored, your question is stupid, and I have to keep myself amused somehow... so I'm writing this in a silly fashion because it plays to my inner 4 year old.))... You think I'm out of truth bullets? https://youtu.be/8Xjr2hnOHiM?t...
Well, are you familiar with anchor babies? So you're a woman and you waddle across the border, pop a baby out on US soil, the basic law of the day is that the baby is a citizen, and because you don't want to split the family up she gets to stay, along with pretty much anyone else she calls family, and then of course via the anchor baby they get welfare that way. *Boom - Headshot*
And that's just one of several ways in which the head of your stupid argument gets blown completely off its fucking shoulders.
*blows dramatically into barrel of truth gun (its my penis) and "holsters"*
Let me know if you'd like another example of why you're wrong. I can think of four other ways right off the top of my head. This is all well documented stuff, chum.
As reported in the New York fucking Times. *shakes, dabs, and "reholsters"*
I have to write this way in discussions like this... its like arguing with people that think 1+1=2 is debatable. Its not. https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos?t...
It doesn't really matter, the Mexicans are complicit in encouraging poor people and other undesirables to leave mexico and go to the US. They openly have published manuals telling would be illegals how to enter the US in violation of our laws, deal with border patrol, and even I shit you not apply for US government housing and income assistance upon entering the US illegally. Its unprecedented so far as I know anywhere else in the world. The US border is basically Mexico's welfare system.
As to getting mexico to pay for it. We give mexico about half a billion in aid every year, we give them preferential trade status... we have a lot of leverage. And really simply putting the mexicans on notice for what they're doing might be the most important thing. Not just words you understand... but making it clear the free ride is over. If the mexicans really wanted to be hard nosed about it... the US could pay for the whole thing out of Mexico's aid without any other modifications required. That wouldn't be a full fence along the entire border but more one in the high traffic areas.
And you could even itemize the budget so US expenses that were incurred dealing with illegals in the US from mexico... that is both mexicans and people that cross illegal from mexico... you could deduct that from aid money. There are things you could do that would make it bite.
Personally, if I were president, I'd go for a "reciprocal" immigration policy. That is, whatever other countries allowed and offered immigrants to their country, I would offer that in return. Rational limits apply. But the idea would be if country X doesn't let Americans enter their country without a visa, immediately take up residence, vote, receive government benefits in that new country, hold property, own businesses, etc... then I'm not letting people from their country do that in the US.
Its kind of annoying that people from all over the world can immigrate to the US but Americans can't immigrate anywhere else. Mexico has a cute policy about non-native mexicans not being able to own property within so many miles of the coast I think... and its very hard for Americans to own and operate businesses in Mexico without a mexican partner basically assuming ownership of it on paper in mexico.
If the US applied all the crap mexico would apply to Americans in the same situation on their own territory it would actually resolve a lot of the problem. And while the mexicans like to point at any anything and call it racism, how can it be racism when they do the exact same thing? If it is, they're hypocrites and I don't want to hear it from them.
Internationally most countries deny visas all the time for reasons ranging from "because" to "you said something that hurt my feelings" to "you once talked to a guy I don't like".
So the US denying entry visas on grounds similar to what other countries all over the world... including England, France, Japan, Switzerland etc deny visas on... that's fine. No nation really has any grounds to criticize the US for its entry policies since they're generally more permissive than anyone else.
As to denying citizens the right to use the air network without some sort of "probable cause"... that's probably unjustifiable. What I would be fine with is putting said person on a "frisk" list. That is... when they book a flight, the TSA is notified that X person on Y flight at Z time but be subjected to security procedures A, B, and C. And reasons for being on that list could be "because", "reasons", "mean tweets", "some guy I know said you some thing about you"... etc.
Maybe even let them know that that is going to happen so they know they have to arrive early. They go to a room somewhere... two gentlemen wearing blue gloves ask them about a girl... will smith pulls out a little silver dildo/flashlight, maybe an Australian doing a voice impression of Carl Sagan talks about multiple identities... and then you carry on with your flight business as usual.
Its the 21st century and crazy people like to blow up americans randomly for the lolz... a certain level of scrutiny is appropriate.
"" Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.
The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?
Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.) ""
Trump is a complicated subject... because its insane... but the situation is so nutty that he starts to make sense... which tells you how insane the situation is...
Americans are furious. Both sides of the political spectrum.
Republicans are pissed. Democrats are pissed.
No one trusts anyone. Both side's politicians are full of shit.
There is a general consensus that the elites are fucking over the people at large.
The republicans tried to purge their own party with the "tea party" and similar things. Democrats only see this form their perspective but they don't realize that a fair amount of the animus was directed at the establishment republicans which is why the establishment doesn't like the tea party.
The democrats tried to purge their own party with stuff like code pink, occupy wall street, and now black lives matter.
And all of this is failing. The Establishment of both parties is very good at stonewalling this stuff. Black Lives Matter shows up to a Bernie speech and basically takes it over. They try the same thing at a Hillary speech and they don't even get in the front door. Think about that.
And that's basically what has been going on. So what is Donald Trump?
In my view, he's a purgative. A drug you take to induce vomiting. You accidentally eat poison... it has to get out. So you take a purgative... and you vomit.
The American electorate has been dry heaving for decades. We're that cat that just can't seem to get up that golf ball sized fur ball. And we just stand there back arched... dry heaving trying to get it out.
Do I like Donald? He's a weird guy. But I think BOTH parties should have someone like him running. Because Hillary is business as usual, Bernie is weak, and I've not seen anyone else out of them that is ready to challenge the establishment.
To paraphrase Augustus, "things that can't go on forever - don't."... The status quo is not acceptable. The corruption, the incompetence, the deceit... it has to stop.
We tried just voting them out. That failed. We tried splinter political factions. That failed. We tried lobbying and bribery to make them stop. That failed.
So... we're open to the "unstoppable clown car" that is Donald Trump.
If this fails as well... it just means the madness will be escalated another notch. This is not stopping.
Something that I think the establishment is starting to wake up to is that people are f'ing furious. And while some may giggle at the fury, it is unwise to not appreciate that people behave increasingly unpredictably as the fury builds. The sort of rage that is building is the kind where you rip off your OWN arm and beat someone to death with it. The establishment can't handle that.
I assume Donald is going to lose here... but whomever does win... whomever is in charge... they're going to have to change the way things are done. Because the whole "you need to pass the law to see what is in it" thing along with powerful people blatantly violating federal law and getting away with it... The big powerful companies fucking up and then getting bailed out by everyone that didn't fuck up.
If infantry could hold against tanks than the tank would not have been invented.
You have to remember back to the genesis of the tank itself. It goes back to WW1. There were previous versions but the actual tank as we understand it didn't come around until WW1 and it was created to break through trench warfare.
Now, if the tank could not do that... then that would have been the end of the tank.
A very interesting video from a guy that went through the records to figure out what was going on with the various tanks in WW2. His conclusion is that the Sherman for example was actually an excellent tank with the flaws greatly exaggerated... he also gives some insight into how the tanks were used. For example, he touches on the statement that the Americans would send 5 shermans to deal with a given enemy tank. His response to that is that the Americans would send no less than 5 tanks against anything. A unit of 5 tanks were the unit and they didn't break up. Just an interesting video on tanks.
As to this fear of built up areas. I'm going to have to paraphrase Patton here and ask you why I care about the built up area? Why not just go around it? Who cares. Do they have the princess of the Mushroom Kingdom in there? Will she give me a BJ if I get her out? Why not just ignore them? And if I'm going in... can I just kill them all? Because... I might as well just call in a B52 or something and flatten the place.
Unless what we're talking about here is the now tired human shield situation where some local group of scumbags are hiding behind women and children, putting weapons caches in schools, etc.
And if that's what going on, then I'm not walking into the middle of that shit. I'm inclined to deal with that if anything the way Julius dealt with the Gauls. I'll siege the city. I won't be so heartless as Julius... I'll let the civilians leave.
But when it comes to cities my personal inclination is to do one of these things:
Going into a city and fighting house to house is a shitty job no matter how you do it. There's no good way to do it. And if you add to that the modern disinterest in wearing uniforms with the result that you can't tell the difference between an civilian non-compatent and an enemy combatenet.
So you say "tanks are bad in that situation"... nothing is good in that situation. Its like fighting on the surface of the sun or something... everything sucks.
How would I deal with the situation if "REALLY" HAD to go in... Gas. Massive fucking tear gas bombs. Colossal tear gas bombs. I would want it to be so bad that the only people in the area when I moved in were crazy people that had been vomiting for 24 hours and still didn't think they should go... and the enemy. And I'm just going to assume everyone in the area after its been hit with tear gas for a long time is the enemy. That should clear out the civilians frankly most of the enemy should leave too. How are they going to stay? Maybe they have gas masks... okay... but you can't just sit there with a gas mask on forever.
Anyway... then I'd advance with prejudice... and if it moved I'd blow the fuck out of it. If what moved turned out to be a bus load of orphans that would be really sad. But you can't say I didn't try to avoid the situation.
Civilians and the enemy must be separated. Ideally, the enemy has the decency to do this on their own by evacuating civilians from territory about to be hit by their enemy. If the power in charge of the city has no honor at all, then they'll hide behind women and children. And then you either have to accept that you need to kill women and children to get to your target OR you have to find a way to separate the two or bypass the civilians.
Many people think that we must be honor bound to get close enough to the enemy to sort one from the other at close range. Negat
/. as usual is showing how incompetent its filters are... its saying that my post has too few characters. It says my post only has 23.5 characters... Point... 5. Anywho, I'm going to post it on pastebin and then provide the link. Its what I do when/. shits the bed.
You're blaming the fall of Detroit on the corps? The corps were the ones that made Detroit rich in the first place. And the fall of Detroit doesn't correspond with anything the corps did. It corresponds rather with the great cities program which Detroit was the center piece of... and you basically nuked the city.
You took the richest city in the country and destroyed it.
As to your evasions... keep wriggling on the spit. It amuses me.
... you're assuming it does any of its functions competently. It doesn't.... you're assuming it is cheaper to buy one catch all plane rather than several specialized planes. It is not.
As to why first world countries signed on to this thing, it was an idea by the US congress that they could lower the cost of military spending by co-developing it with other countries and having them share the cost of the R and D.
It basically backfired horribly because too many different interests said "we need THIS feature or we can't sign on"... and once all the features were added the plane was unworkable.
What they should have done is split it up into a few planes.
We need a VTOL plane... like the harrier. Boeing has model that could have gone into protection.
Stealth should have been avoided in exchange for drone line cruise missiles that can penetrate enemy air space and destroy ground targets as effectively as a stealth plane. If you really need a stealth fighter, buy an F22.
The rest of the needs should have been evolutions of the F15 and F18.
No, I'm saying there have to be costs associated with every submission and I don't understand what they are... and neither do you. So perhaps I should send an email off to one of the journals so I can talk to someone with a clue? We'll see if I care enough.
As to 62 percent, so you admit the numbers don't make sense to you either.
My statement about scientists or universities getting paid was a supposition based on the numbers. If it is in error it just means something else is going on.
When I say "your move" I am challenging you to come up with another explanation. If you don't have one... then we're both confused.;)
As to me not getting a certain type of comment in this thread that I can quote... I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. how can you say it doesn't happen when I can quote people doing precisely that?
I think your hostility has overwhelmed your reason.
A bad trait.. and really quite unforgivable in a scientist. Scientists are people too but... try to be better. We're counting on you.
... You think tanks are bad at dealing with dug in infantry?
Think you back to WW1 where the tank was born, dear one. No my sweet summer child, what do you know of tanks? Nothing.
Tanks EAT infantry. What do you think the Germans were doing to the Russians in WW2? Yes... The Russians had tanks eventually... but how many infantry charges into the teeth of the armor did it take for the Russians to learn to love armor themselves?
You're not arguing against me. I am repeating what US military doctrine is in these matters.
First you obtain air superiority. The US does not like to advance without it.
Then you use that to bring in heavy air group support. This is used to bomb or otherwise destroy fortified targets as well as tanks. The real tank killer in the US arsenal is the A10 Warthog and similar technologies like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This air power will strike deep destroying enemy supply, vehicles, fortifications, command and control, etc.
Into this chaos US ground forces deploy on land, sea, and dropped deep in enemy territory by air. The idea is to give the enemy no safe place to organize so they are in all places being routed at once.
This softens enemy resistance for heavy US ground forces to advance largely unopposed by anything formidable.
Cities are a problem mostly because we don't like to kill the civilian population wholesale. Though as WW2 makes clear, it is an option and if we take that option the cities are no barrier at all. Their defense is a moral and political one... not a military one. The defense is the human shield of the civilian population.
As to infantry attacking tanks... that assumes you get near enough to the infantry. man portable anti tank weaponry is much shorter range than the main gun of a mainline battle tank. if the tank holds back to let infantry move forward or shells the target from a distance there isn't anything the defending infantry can do.
As to many tools for many jobs. There we agree. However an infantry force with anti tank rockets does not enjoy an advantage against an armored column. Yes the infantry can hide in trenches or spring out of weird places to fire rockets. But the tank can blow those hiding places up from a distance, stay out of range, and keep in mind that tanks carry heavy anti infantry weapons. Multiple heavy machine guns in addition to the big gun that will obliterate pretty much whatever they're hiding behind.
Sorry if this sounds combative... its my way. My ire is always directed at the words and the argument... not the person speaking them.:)
Login and I'll humiliate you with facts. Stay Anonymous Coward and you merely concede you aren't prepared to defend your positions.
I've ground that exact argument to paste a dozen times. It won't even have to think to do it. So login and lose or stay AC and surrender the point by default.
Copy editing, layout, etc for given papers should be handled by the submitting scientists. You're acting like the journal writes the fucking thing for them.
As to my assumption being wrong... explain to me why it is wrong? I reject the notion that the journal itself spends much time worrying about the layout of someone's scientific paper.
I've read more scientific papers than I'd actually prefer over the years and the layout is terrible. They're all laid out like its 1942... on the internet.
Contradict me. Pull up a scientific paper right now. No no... now. Look at the layout and pretend that is modern or ideal.
The F35 is a merely a demonstration of the fallacy that combining everything into a single platform or department reduces costs or makes things more efficient.
Often things work better broken up with different things specializing in different things.
A tank, that is also an artillery piece, that is also a troop carrier, that is also a scout, that is also... its going to be shitty at everything and very expensive.
What killed the F35 was the inclusion of two very difficult features.
Stealth and VTOL. both of these things make a plane slower, less maneuverable in dog fights, and able to carry less weaponry.
The F35 should have been about five or six different airplanes.
First, the value of the stealth appears to be debatable. If the F15 eagle can see the F35 and engage it then where is the stealth? The need for that feature in a work horse is debatable in and of itself.
Second, the only people that care about VTOL are the marines and the british navy.
So those are two separate planes. Have a stealth plane for stealth stuff. Have a VTOL workhorse for the marines and the brits. I think Boeing was pitching one as a replacement to the harrier.
We go on from there. But the notion that you save money by having one plane is false. Look at the old Vietnam era planes. They are relatively cheap to maintain, cheap to replace if we want to do that, still very effective, and each one only suffers attrition when it is employed in what it does best. Which means the plane suffers LESS attrition than a generalized plane because a specialized plane is designed to take certain threats. A warthog is going to take more punishment than an F35 before being dropped by ground fire.
So yeah... split the plane up. Realize what we need version of... because a lot of our old hardware is actually fine. And then do the thing we need a new version of.
The big thing of US military doctrine is getting air superiority. We get that, its game over. Our old heavy ground support planes can come in and just pound the shit out of the ground targets with impunity. And while that's happening our armor rolls in if required... not confronting enemy armor, but largely disorganized ground troops.
The focus should be on getting air superiority. That's where you need the high tech hardware. After that... the enemy is meat.
He offered three explanations for where 62 percent of revenue goes:
"" Publication costs - even for online-only journals - are a big part of it. This isn't just web hosting, it is indexing so that people can start at your front page and find the paper they are looking for.
There are also indexing costs so that the papers are indexed by relevant search engines (ISI, Scopus, Pubmed, Google Scholar, etc) so that people can find the papers. Human and machine time go in to this to make sure that the search engines find the papers.
There are also costs associated with tracking references to and from papers; this is one of the most valuable services that journals provide now ""
1. Publication costs. Zero dollars. The cost of maintaining one of these sites should be so marginal in the scheme of things that if it is consuming more than 5 percent of their revenue then I'd look at it very closely. Possibly they're doing something funky with their site which could be used to squeeze a few percentage points but we're talking about something that should be one of the smallest expenses in the organization.
2. Indexing... care to put a percentage of revenue they spend on this? Because I would have thought this was free. So... what percentage goes to that?
3. I'm not even sure what they're talking about here. It sounds sort of like he's trying to list item 2 twice.
Yeah I'm not seeing 62 percent of revenue in that. Collectively that looks like less than 10... significantly less than 10.
Did you eat all the magic mushrooms? I mean... all of them? Every last one? Didn't leave any for anyone else? That's selfish.
That the infrastructure has not kept pace with the growth is self evident. Are you another of those guys where you need the full 18 inches of purple dildo facts jammed right up your ass?
Is that what you want? Want me to get the data and just give it to you? Because we both know what is in this sticky box here... I mean, if you want it... I'll give it to you. But I don't want to hear any of this "oh go slow"... "oh its too big"... If I open this box... You know where it's going and I'm not going to stop.
So... tell me... do you want it?
Let me just describe in brief the veiny outline of what I'm going to do here. If you say you want what is in the box, I'm going to get water use figures from around 1960 and I'm going to get water infrustructure figures from around 1960 and I'm going to get ratio of demand to supply. And then I'm going to compare that to what we have in 2015...
And yes... It vibrates. Of course it does.
So are you excited take the plunge as I am? Because... we can do it. if you want it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you compare the rates on the consumer plans to the business plans you can see how much fat is in the consumer price tag.
This is why I hate business pricing. Its basically prices for idiots versus prices for people without their heads up their asses.
If I needed a bunch of phones, I'd say I was a business if I needed the business pricing.
Watching the cellphone industry draw down prices quarter after quarter is hilarious. No sale.
I agree, some kind of memory partitioning would make some sense.
People say "there's no reason why you shouldn't use all your ram"... the problem is that if all this shit is using it up then it isn't free for when I want to launch something that is going to gobble 4 gigs.... justifiably.
The thing I find the most distressing is that the ram numbers don't add up anymore. Even if you add all the categories of ram together it doesn't make any sense. Windows fragments the list of ram usage into "working", "private", etc... and so its hard to know ALL the ram X is using. I've found system services are often gobbling a gig or two.
Windows ram management is shit frankly... at least to the extent that it wastes ram profligately. If they actually reduced the ram a program got when they needed more ram for something else, I'd say fine. But in practice it doesn't happen.
So whatever... 16 gigs and it doesn't bother me.
Actually the biggest change they can cite is that in some areas the average water consumption per person went from 170 gallons to 150 gallons... and that's only a in a couple places. Most places the average water use per person remains 170 gallons.
Look at your data.
As to words used... we're talking about water infrastructure. If that blows your tiny little mind that isn't my problem. It is obvious that you need not only storage but some source to supply that storage.
As to your petty whining at getting raped by the facts. I warned you.
Next time don't ask for what's in the box.
I won't be responding to you again in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
... gaming mostly. But it happened in other situations. I'm a really heavy multitasker. I have dozens of programs running at the same time. Long story short, 16 gigs needed to happen to make the pain go away.
as to tanks doing better with infantry, obviously combined arms is superior. Those arms however do contain tanks and air craft as well as infantry.
As to the eastern european situation:
We apparently gave the Poles high level access to the First World's military industrial complex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look at that thing. The armor is a BAE prototype:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thermal pixels cover the tank so it can vanish on thermal optics.
Look at that tank again... it's a night fighter... a smoke fighter. When vision is poor in tanks they switch to thermal optics. This thing will just vanish.
And you remember that first video I sent you with the Poles attacking German tanks on horse back in WW2? The Poles have a "never again" mentality on the whole thing.
Just sort of interesting what ol' Putin is baiting.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. If you are arguing for combined arms then we have no disagreement.
Not entirely true that air power cannot secure an area. Its just that you can't use anything other than specialized ground attack aircraft.
Understand what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about fighter bombers. I'm talking about AC130 gunships, A10s, and some of the heavier attack helecopters.
There are many incidents of large ground attacks occuring and without any ground units what so ever, the entire attack either turned around, stopped, or obliterated by air power.
If you do that and make it clear you can do it again whenever you feel like it... then you can hold the territory with air power.
This was one of the many mistakes the US made with its various projects over the last few years. What we should have offered was heavy air support. The ground forces get backed up by the heavy air support. No need to give the Iraqis heavy weapons etc. You give them machine guns, tell them to lay out sand bags, and then give them radios. They get into trouble... they hold their ground, call in support, and hell rains on the enemy.
That is ignoring the MANY other problems with these countries and the impossibility of keeping Iraq one country without someone like saddam occasionally gasing large portions of the population to maintain the status quo. A lot of that is as pointless appeasement of Turkey. The whole Kurdish situation. We should have worked it out with the Turks in clear terms... aka "this is going to happen, we understand you don't like it, is there anything we can do or promise to make you less inclined to be pricks about it?" And if not, then go ahead and do it anyway. Iraq has to be split up.
((Forgive the style of this, I'm bored, your question is stupid, and I have to keep myself amused somehow... so I'm writing this in a silly fashion because it plays to my inner 4 year old.)) ... You think I'm out of truth bullets?
https://youtu.be/8Xjr2hnOHiM?t...
Well, are you familiar with anchor babies? So you're a woman and you waddle across the border, pop a baby out on US soil, the basic law of the day is that the baby is a citizen, and because you don't want to split the family up she gets to stay, along with pretty much anyone else she calls family, and then of course via the anchor baby they get welfare that way. *Boom - Headshot*
And that's just one of several ways in which the head of your stupid argument gets blown completely off its fucking shoulders.
*blows dramatically into barrel of truth gun (its my penis) and "holsters"*
Let me know if you'd like another example of why you're wrong. I can think of four other ways right off the top of my head. This is all well documented stuff, chum.
*quick draws*
As to manuals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01...
As reported in the New York fucking Times.
*shakes, dabs, and "reholsters"*
I have to write this way in discussions like this... its like arguing with people that think 1+1=2 is debatable. Its not.
https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos?t...
*Rawr*
clarify please... keep Poe's law in mind.
It doesn't really matter, the Mexicans are complicit in encouraging poor people and other undesirables to leave mexico and go to the US. They openly have published manuals telling would be illegals how to enter the US in violation of our laws, deal with border patrol, and even I shit you not apply for US government housing and income assistance upon entering the US illegally. Its unprecedented so far as I know anywhere else in the world. The US border is basically Mexico's welfare system.
As to getting mexico to pay for it. We give mexico about half a billion in aid every year, we give them preferential trade status... we have a lot of leverage. And really simply putting the mexicans on notice for what they're doing might be the most important thing. Not just words you understand... but making it clear the free ride is over. If the mexicans really wanted to be hard nosed about it... the US could pay for the whole thing out of Mexico's aid without any other modifications required. That wouldn't be a full fence along the entire border but more one in the high traffic areas.
And you could even itemize the budget so US expenses that were incurred dealing with illegals in the US from mexico... that is both mexicans and people that cross illegal from mexico... you could deduct that from aid money. There are things you could do that would make it bite.
Personally, if I were president, I'd go for a "reciprocal" immigration policy. That is, whatever other countries allowed and offered immigrants to their country, I would offer that in return. Rational limits apply. But the idea would be if country X doesn't let Americans enter their country without a visa, immediately take up residence, vote, receive government benefits in that new country, hold property, own businesses, etc... then I'm not letting people from their country do that in the US.
Its kind of annoying that people from all over the world can immigrate to the US but Americans can't immigrate anywhere else. Mexico has a cute policy about non-native mexicans not being able to own property within so many miles of the coast I think... and its very hard for Americans to own and operate businesses in Mexico without a mexican partner basically assuming ownership of it on paper in mexico.
If the US applied all the crap mexico would apply to Americans in the same situation on their own territory it would actually resolve a lot of the problem. And while the mexicans like to point at any anything and call it racism, how can it be racism when they do the exact same thing? If it is, they're hypocrites and I don't want to hear it from them.
Internationally most countries deny visas all the time for reasons ranging from "because" to "you said something that hurt my feelings" to "you once talked to a guy I don't like".
So the US denying entry visas on grounds similar to what other countries all over the world... including England, France, Japan, Switzerland etc deny visas on... that's fine. No nation really has any grounds to criticize the US for its entry policies since they're generally more permissive than anyone else.
As to denying citizens the right to use the air network without some sort of "probable cause"... that's probably unjustifiable. What I would be fine with is putting said person on a "frisk" list. That is... when they book a flight, the TSA is notified that X person on Y flight at Z time but be subjected to security procedures A, B, and C. And reasons for being on that list could be "because", "reasons", "mean tweets", "some guy I know said you some thing about you"... etc.
Maybe even let them know that that is going to happen so they know they have to arrive early. They go to a room somewhere... two gentlemen wearing blue gloves ask them about a girl... will smith pulls out a little silver dildo/flashlight, maybe an Australian doing a voice impression of Carl Sagan talks about multiple identities... and then you carry on with your flight business as usual.
Its the 21st century and crazy people like to blow up americans randomly for the lolz... a certain level of scrutiny is appropriate.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
""
Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.
The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?
Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)
""
Trump is a complicated subject... because its insane... but the situation is so nutty that he starts to make sense... which tells you how insane the situation is...
Americans are furious. Both sides of the political spectrum.
Republicans are pissed.
Democrats are pissed.
No one trusts anyone.
Both side's politicians are full of shit.
There is a general consensus that the elites are fucking over the people at large.
The republicans tried to purge their own party with the "tea party" and similar things. Democrats only see this form their perspective but they don't realize that a fair amount of the animus was directed at the establishment republicans which is why the establishment doesn't like the tea party.
The democrats tried to purge their own party with stuff like code pink, occupy wall street, and now black lives matter.
And all of this is failing. The Establishment of both parties is very good at stonewalling this stuff. Black Lives Matter shows up to a Bernie speech and basically takes it over. They try the same thing at a Hillary speech and they don't even get in the front door. Think about that.
And that's basically what has been going on. So what is Donald Trump?
In my view, he's a purgative. A drug you take to induce vomiting. You accidentally eat poison... it has to get out. So you take a purgative... and you vomit.
The American electorate has been dry heaving for decades. We're that cat that just can't seem to get up that golf ball sized fur ball. And we just stand there back arched... dry heaving trying to get it out.
Do I like Donald? He's a weird guy. But I think BOTH parties should have someone like him running. Because Hillary is business as usual, Bernie is weak, and I've not seen anyone else out of them that is ready to challenge the establishment.
To paraphrase Augustus, "things that can't go on forever - don't."... The status quo is not acceptable. The corruption, the incompetence, the deceit... it has to stop.
We tried just voting them out. That failed.
We tried splinter political factions. That failed.
We tried lobbying and bribery to make them stop. That failed.
So... we're open to the "unstoppable clown car" that is Donald Trump.
If this fails as well... it just means the madness will be escalated another notch. This is not stopping.
Something that I think the establishment is starting to wake up to is that people are f'ing furious. And while some may giggle at the fury, it is unwise to not appreciate that people behave increasingly unpredictably as the fury builds. The sort of rage that is building is the kind where you rip off your OWN arm and beat someone to death with it. The establishment can't handle that.
I assume Donald is going to lose here... but whomever does win... whomever is in charge... they're going to have to change the way things are done. Because the whole "you need to pass the law to see what is in it" thing along with powerful people blatantly violating federal law and getting away with it... The big powerful companies fucking up and then getting bailed out by everyone that didn't fuck up.
This is starting to get dangerous.
If infantry could hold against tanks than the tank would not have been invented.
You have to remember back to the genesis of the tank itself. It goes back to WW1. There were previous versions but the actual tank as we understand it didn't come around until WW1 and it was created to break through trench warfare.
Now, if the tank could not do that... then that would have been the end of the tank.
Something you might enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A very interesting video from a guy that went through the records to figure out what was going on with the various tanks in WW2. His conclusion is that the Sherman for example was actually an excellent tank with the flaws greatly exaggerated... he also gives some insight into how the tanks were used. For example, he touches on the statement that the Americans would send 5 shermans to deal with a given enemy tank. His response to that is that the Americans would send no less than 5 tanks against anything. A unit of 5 tanks were the unit and they didn't break up. Just an interesting video on tanks.
As to this fear of built up areas. I'm going to have to paraphrase Patton here and ask you why I care about the built up area? Why not just go around it? Who cares. Do they have the princess of the Mushroom Kingdom in there? Will she give me a BJ if I get her out? Why not just ignore them? And if I'm going in... can I just kill them all? Because... I might as well just call in a B52 or something and flatten the place.
Unless what we're talking about here is the now tired human shield situation where some local group of scumbags are hiding behind women and children, putting weapons caches in schools, etc.
And if that's what going on, then I'm not walking into the middle of that shit. I'm inclined to deal with that if anything the way Julius dealt with the Gauls. I'll siege the city. I won't be so heartless as Julius... I'll let the civilians leave.
But when it comes to cities my personal inclination is to do one of these things:
1. Simply avoid them.
2. Flatten them.
3. Siege them.
Going into a city and fighting house to house is a shitty job no matter how you do it. There's no good way to do it. And if you add to that the modern disinterest in wearing uniforms with the result that you can't tell the difference between an civilian non-compatent and an enemy combatenet.
So you say "tanks are bad in that situation"... nothing is good in that situation. Its like fighting on the surface of the sun or something... everything sucks.
How would I deal with the situation if "REALLY" HAD to go in... Gas. Massive fucking tear gas bombs. Colossal tear gas bombs. I would want it to be so bad that the only people in the area when I moved in were crazy people that had been vomiting for 24 hours and still didn't think they should go... and the enemy. And I'm just going to assume everyone in the area after its been hit with tear gas for a long time is the enemy. That should clear out the civilians frankly most of the enemy should leave too. How are they going to stay? Maybe they have gas masks... okay... but you can't just sit there with a gas mask on forever.
Anyway... then I'd advance with prejudice... and if it moved I'd blow the fuck out of it. If what moved turned out to be a bus load of orphans that would be really sad. But you can't say I didn't try to avoid the situation.
Civilians and the enemy must be separated. Ideally, the enemy has the decency to do this on their own by evacuating civilians from territory about to be hit by their enemy. If the power in charge of the city has no honor at all, then they'll hide behind women and children. And then you either have to accept that you need to kill women and children to get to your target OR you have to find a way to separate the two or bypass the civilians.
Many people think that we must be honor bound to get close enough to the enemy to sort one from the other at close range. Negat
/. as usual is showing how incompetent its filters are... its saying that my post has too few characters. It says my post only has 23.5 characters... Point... 5. Anywho, I'm going to post it on pastebin and then provide the link. Its what I do when /. shits the bed.
http://pastebin.com/FVcGA2aV
Not really. An F15 Eagle will dust any VTOL fighter ever made.
As to bad ideas being repeated... I don't doubt it.
You're blaming the fall of Detroit on the corps? The corps were the ones that made Detroit rich in the first place. And the fall of Detroit doesn't correspond with anything the corps did. It corresponds rather with the great cities program which Detroit was the center piece of... and you basically nuked the city.
You took the richest city in the country and destroyed it.
As to your evasions... keep wriggling on the spit. It amuses me.
... you're assuming it does any of its functions competently. It doesn't. ... you're assuming it is cheaper to buy one catch all plane rather than several specialized planes. It is not.
As to why first world countries signed on to this thing, it was an idea by the US congress that they could lower the cost of military spending by co-developing it with other countries and having them share the cost of the R and D.
It basically backfired horribly because too many different interests said "we need THIS feature or we can't sign on"... and once all the features were added the plane was unworkable.
What they should have done is split it up into a few planes.
We need a VTOL plane... like the harrier. Boeing has model that could have gone into protection.
Stealth should have been avoided in exchange for drone line cruise missiles that can penetrate enemy air space and destroy ground targets as effectively as a stealth plane. If you really need a stealth fighter, buy an F22.
The rest of the needs should have been evolutions of the F15 and F18.
This movie is a comedy about this sort of thing happening. its happened before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, I'm saying there have to be costs associated with every submission and I don't understand what they are... and neither do you. So perhaps I should send an email off to one of the journals so I can talk to someone with a clue? We'll see if I care enough.
As to 62 percent, so you admit the numbers don't make sense to you either.
My statement about scientists or universities getting paid was a supposition based on the numbers. If it is in error it just means something else is going on.
When I say "your move" I am challenging you to come up with another explanation. If you don't have one... then we're both confused. ;)
As to me not getting a certain type of comment in this thread that I can quote... I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. how can you say it doesn't happen when I can quote people doing precisely that?
I think your hostility has overwhelmed your reason.
A bad trait.. and really quite unforgivable in a scientist. Scientists are people too but... try to be better. We're counting on you.
You found me out... I'm an NSA shill. :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
... You think tanks are bad at dealing with dug in infantry?
Think you back to WW1 where the tank was born, dear one. No my sweet summer child, what do you know of tanks? Nothing.
Tanks EAT infantry. What do you think the Germans were doing to the Russians in WW2? Yes... The Russians had tanks eventually... but how many infantry charges into the teeth of the armor did it take for the Russians to learn to love armor themselves?
I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
or if you prefer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you thinks those days are over:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're not arguing against me. I am repeating what US military doctrine is in these matters.
First you obtain air superiority. The US does not like to advance without it.
Then you use that to bring in heavy air group support. This is used to bomb or otherwise destroy fortified targets as well as tanks. The real tank killer in the US arsenal is the A10 Warthog and similar technologies like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or if you prefer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This air power will strike deep destroying enemy supply, vehicles, fortifications, command and control, etc.
Into this chaos US ground forces deploy on land, sea, and dropped deep in enemy territory by air. The idea is to give the enemy no safe place to organize so they are in all places being routed at once.
This softens enemy resistance for heavy US ground forces to advance largely unopposed by anything formidable.
Cities are a problem mostly because we don't like to kill the civilian population wholesale. Though as WW2 makes clear, it is an option and if we take that option the cities are no barrier at all. Their defense is a moral and political one... not a military one. The defense is the human shield of the civilian population.
As to infantry attacking tanks... that assumes you get near enough to the infantry. man portable anti tank weaponry is much shorter range than the main gun of a mainline battle tank. if the tank holds back to let infantry move forward or shells the target from a distance there isn't anything the defending infantry can do.
As to many tools for many jobs. There we agree. However an infantry force with anti tank rockets does not enjoy an advantage against an armored column. Yes the infantry can hide in trenches or spring out of weird places to fire rockets. But the tank can blow those hiding places up from a distance, stay out of range, and keep in mind that tanks carry heavy anti infantry weapons. Multiple heavy machine guns in addition to the big gun that will obliterate pretty much whatever they're hiding behind.
Sorry if this sounds combative... its my way. My ire is always directed at the words and the argument... not the person speaking them. :)
Login and I'll humiliate you with facts. Stay Anonymous Coward and you merely concede you aren't prepared to defend your positions.
I've ground that exact argument to paste a dozen times. It won't even have to think to do it. So login and lose or stay AC and surrender the point by default.
I don't care which you choose.
Copy editing, layout, etc for given papers should be handled by the submitting scientists. You're acting like the journal writes the fucking thing for them.
As to my assumption being wrong... explain to me why it is wrong? I reject the notion that the journal itself spends much time worrying about the layout of someone's scientific paper.
I've read more scientific papers than I'd actually prefer over the years and the layout is terrible. They're all laid out like its 1942... on the internet.
Contradict me. Pull up a scientific paper right now. No no... now. Look at the layout and pretend that is modern or ideal.
The F35 is a merely a demonstration of the fallacy that combining everything into a single platform or department reduces costs or makes things more efficient.
Often things work better broken up with different things specializing in different things.
A tank, that is also an artillery piece, that is also a troop carrier, that is also a scout, that is also... its going to be shitty at everything and very expensive.
What killed the F35 was the inclusion of two very difficult features.
Stealth and VTOL. both of these things make a plane slower, less maneuverable in dog fights, and able to carry less weaponry.
The F35 should have been about five or six different airplanes.
First, the value of the stealth appears to be debatable. If the F15 eagle can see the F35 and engage it then where is the stealth? The need for that feature in a work horse is debatable in and of itself.
Second, the only people that care about VTOL are the marines and the british navy.
So those are two separate planes. Have a stealth plane for stealth stuff. Have a VTOL workhorse for the marines and the brits. I think Boeing was pitching one as a replacement to the harrier.
We go on from there. But the notion that you save money by having one plane is false. Look at the old Vietnam era planes. They are relatively cheap to maintain, cheap to replace if we want to do that, still very effective, and each one only suffers attrition when it is employed in what it does best. Which means the plane suffers LESS attrition than a generalized plane because a specialized plane is designed to take certain threats. A warthog is going to take more punishment than an F35 before being dropped by ground fire.
So yeah... split the plane up. Realize what we need version of... because a lot of our old hardware is actually fine. And then do the thing we need a new version of.
The big thing of US military doctrine is getting air superiority. We get that, its game over. Our old heavy ground support planes can come in and just pound the shit out of the ground targets with impunity. And while that's happening our armor rolls in if required... not confronting enemy armor, but largely disorganized ground troops.
The focus should be on getting air superiority. That's where you need the high tech hardware. After that... the enemy is meat.
He offered three explanations for where 62 percent of revenue goes:
""
Publication costs - even for online-only journals - are a big part of it. This isn't just web hosting, it is indexing so that people can start at your front page and find the paper they are looking for.
There are also indexing costs so that the papers are indexed by relevant search engines (ISI, Scopus, Pubmed, Google Scholar, etc) so that people can find the papers. Human and machine time go in to this to make sure that the search engines find the papers.
There are also costs associated with tracking references to and from papers; this is one of the most valuable services that journals provide now
""
1. Publication costs. Zero dollars. The cost of maintaining one of these sites should be so marginal in the scheme of things that if it is consuming more than 5 percent of their revenue then I'd look at it very closely. Possibly they're doing something funky with their site which could be used to squeeze a few percentage points but we're talking about something that should be one of the smallest expenses in the organization.
2. Indexing... care to put a percentage of revenue they spend on this? Because I would have thought this was free. So... what percentage goes to that?
3. I'm not even sure what they're talking about here. It sounds sort of like he's trying to list item 2 twice.
Yeah I'm not seeing 62 percent of revenue in that. Collectively that looks like less than 10... significantly less than 10.
No evidence?
Did you eat all the magic mushrooms? I mean... all of them? Every last one? Didn't leave any for anyone else? That's selfish.
That the infrastructure has not kept pace with the growth is self evident. Are you another of those guys where you need the full 18 inches of purple dildo facts jammed right up your ass?
Is that what you want? Want me to get the data and just give it to you? Because we both know what is in this sticky box here... I mean, if you want it... I'll give it to you. But I don't want to hear any of this "oh go slow"... "oh its too big"... If I open this box... You know where it's going and I'm not going to stop.
So... tell me... do you want it?
Let me just describe in brief the veiny outline of what I'm going to do here. If you say you want what is in the box, I'm going to get water use figures from around 1960 and I'm going to get water infrustructure figures from around 1960 and I'm going to get ratio of demand to supply. And then I'm going to compare that to what we have in 2015...
And yes... It vibrates. Of course it does.
So are you excited take the plunge as I am? Because... we can do it. if you want it.