> Get real, this is bullshit. Anybody who has or uses an AK47 is not someone who stores meaningful data on a computer.
The armed forces of about 60 countries have and use the AK-47.
ISIL has about a billion dollars. They acquired $429 million when they took over the Mosul branch of the Central Bank of Iraq, and they now run retail bank branches in the territory the occupy. They "govern" a population of about 4 million, roughly half the size of Switzerland or Israel, and a bit larger than Barcelona or Houston.
ISIL has captured Syrian MiG-23 fighter jets, and demonstrated the use of Mohajer 4 drones captured from Syria and Iran. They have the M1A1M Abrams tank captured from the Iraqi army.
ISIL is a quasi-government, with not only a significant military administered by computers, but civil infrastructure as well - a tax system, payroll for 200,000 employees, etc. If you thought ISIL was a few guys riding around on camels, that's not quite true.
Suppose someone with $10 billion dollars moves to the US. That's a short list of possible names, but that's beside the point. So they move to the US. First, they probably build a $100 million house/estate. That's $100 million paid to local workers, and $100 million added to gdp. Next maybe they get a $100,000 security system, paying local workers to set that up, putting $100,000 into the pockets of local workers. That's more GDP. That's the first few weeks they are here.
> nothing changes at all for any person in the country
Some of us like having jobs, especially jobs doing high-end work, which pays well.
> Idon't know... actually I don't care .
That's unfortunate. At least you KNOW that you don't know.
We see that Germany's per gdp (production per person) is about 18% lower than the US. Of that, government consumption per capita is higher by a similar amount. So the country has a bit less, and the government takes a bit more.
Let's see, decade means "ten years", so the last ten years. Do the data cover just the last ten years? Nope.
Or, you can say decade as in 1980s, 1990s, etc. This is the 2010s, so the previous decade would be the 2000s. Does the data stop before 2000? Nope.
Why don't you tell me which definition of "decade" you're using that makes any sense whatsoever.
Even better, why not look at more data, going all the way back to the founding of the Soviet Union. Notice how GDP and other measures of prosperity are ALWAYS at least 90% or so lower than the US during the same time period? Notice how it was so bad the country failed, ceased to exist?
> I suggest cutting rent by 85%. Landlords do not need to be making that much money.
Average rent is about 110% of the cost to own the property- mortgage, property taxes, maintenance, etc. So a property that rents for $11,000/year costs the landlord about $10,000/ rentable year, including vacancy month.
You propose cutting the rent to about $900/year. The cost to the landlord being about $10,000, buying a house and renting it out would mean you'd lose $9,100/year. Obviously virtually nobody is stupid enough to do that; nobody would rent out a house. That's how you end up with shanty towns like you see in Mexico city.
Three years ago, I went back to school. I highly recommend it. Having a clue is nice.
> If someone (hypothetically) lives in an area where the income is $100 a month, but basic amenities are free
The $400/month includes ALL value available, whether that's delivered via government (what you call "free") or by any other means whatever. You compare different economic systems by looking at GDP per capita. That's the total "stuff" produced by a country (food, cars, gas, radios, medicine, everything ) divided by the total number of people. The Soviet Union produced $400 worth of stuff per person.
How it's delivered, whether by taxation and government allocation, private purchases, or any other method doesn't affect it. Each person in the US got nine times as much stuff each month, on average, because the competitive economy produced nine times as much stuff.
You're seriously suggesting that cutting average income by over 85% is a good idea? You REALLY want to live on $400 per month? You can do that already, if that's what you really want.
> you are naive if you think that you can avoid rebooting for all Linux updates. Obviously a kernel update is going to require a reboot
You are mistaken. What is "obvious" to you is not in fact true. Since the beginning, we've been able to upgrade the majority of the kernel with nothing more than "rmmod foo && insmod foo". I've been doing that for twenty years. Seventeen years ago, we gained the ability to upgrade the kernel core live. That's now a default feature of kernels from Redhat and other major distros.
I could go on and similarly address the rest of your misinformed post, but I think it's sufficiently clear that you're at least thoroughly misinformed, if not actually suffering from Stockholm syndrome, defending the organization which holds your business captive.
It's long been true that one could buy a phone similar to last-year's model at a reasonable cost. Since there haven't been any radical improvements for a few years, there's no longer any reason to spend $650 on the hottest new thing. No reason to replace a phone that works fine, and when you do need a new phone the $120 model will do fine.
That shift has several effects, one of which is that carrier subsidies on phone purchases, in which the buyer pays for the $650 phone through a higher monthly bill on contract, have become kinda pointless. No reason not to buy a $120 phone up-front, then get $30 service with no contract.
In Microsoft's heyday, people would anxiously await the opportunity to pay $120 to upgrade to the new version. New bells, whistles, and blue screens.
Now many people are trying hard to avoid Microsoft's "upgrade" to Windows 10. More and more people go through the trouble of removing the Windows install that came with their computer, to replace it with a less troublesome OS. They want to get rid of Windows.
Microsoft's last-ditch solution is to try to get their few remaining hostages and fanboys to not only pay for MS software, but to keep paying again and again every month. I feel for anyone who's either stuck in a position where they have to keep paying every month for software most people don't even want for free, or who simply doesn't know any better, they're probably still paying $25/month for AOL too.
No doubt, the B-52's ability to deliver 70,000 pounds of munitions AND hit singles and is quite a bit more bulk firepower than the F-35.
I just wanted to point out that it's capability IS enough to be pretty devastating- I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. The problems the program has had, which are real, are also grossly over-hyped, imho. Therefore it's worth pointing out that it is a capable platform (albeit expensive) .
Most of would negate the missile's low-observable advantage, of course. For stealth, there are far fewer options.
Something like the Tomahawk is well-suited to smaller unoccupied structures or ships that are within range of a naval vessel, where it's okay if they see it coming three hours ahead of time (and you don't mind waiting for it to get there). An Ohio class submarine with 154 Tomahawk missiles on board can lay waste to a city. If you want to strike sooner, or"stealthier, the F-35 flies twice as fast as the Tomahawk. Obviously the fighter is also capable of destroying enemy vehicles, including enemy planes. You don't fire a cruise missle at a plane.
> drop a small but significant load of weapons and get out.
More specifically, armament can include: eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s (air-to-air load) six 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s (air-to-ground)
Each 2,000 USAF bomb can penetrate up to 15 inches of metal or 11 ft of concrete, depending on the height from which it is dropped, and cause lethal fragmentation to a radius of 1200 feet.
Small by USAF standards, but sufficient for each plane to take out several hardened structures on each flight.
No, Apple didn't send the TVs anywhere. Apple sent a check to a recycling company in exchange for X million pounds of their recycling credits, as required by law.
> If you bounced microwaves in a truncated cone, thrust would be produced out the open end. Most scientists have snorted at the idea
I can see why porcine scientists would snort with approval. After all, if you bounce refrigerators around in a truncated cone (nozzle), they'll produce thrust as they exit the narrow end. If you bounce toasters around, they'll produce thrust out the nozzle. Same with coffee makers. Therefore, if you bounce microwaves around a nozzle...
> How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"
That's false because the article is based on data that isn't about recycling phones. Mostly it's CRT televisions and monitors. So if we take out the incorrect words "from phones", we get "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold". Of course "Apple recycled" isn't true either, so take that out. The (possibly) true part is "$40 million worth of gold". So half the words are true, half aren't.
Assume for a moment that none of the citizens serving in our military would fight on the right side. I present to you the following examples of the US government using its "rocket launchers" vs a "clearly outmatched" population: Vietnam Iraq Korea
It turns out that a determined population isn't readily defeated by even the strongest military in the world.
Consider further what happens when even a single B-2 pilot decides to put 80 JDAM-equipped guided bombs into the White House and whatever other government targets he chooses to eliminate. Any one of the 18 Ohio-class submarines could use its 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles to remove Washington.
I've worked in information security for a long time. I 've spoken with colleagues at various government agencies and learned that indeed they don't have a expertise far beyond what's available in the private sector; the movies are as fictional in that respect as they are in others. They do need assistance from the private side of the infosec community.
Fifteen years ago, I would have been happy to assist those who protect and serve if they were working on some actual crime, such as a murder case I was once contacted about. Since Snowden and other events, it's become quite clear that the federal government is not the good guys, for any definition of "good guys".
There's no single solution, but there is one thing that would really help. Prior to 9/11, international spy agencies such as the NSA were prohibited from sharing information with domestic police at agencies such as the FBI. The thinking was that the techniques and mindset used against our enemies, such as North Korea, shouldn't be used against our own citizens. After 9/11 it was determined (correctly) that the prohibition on cooperation made it more difficult to defend against attacks, so the rules were weakened or eliminated and cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement was encouraged. We need to put those walls back in place. Yes it will make defending against attacks more difficult, but it's worth it because the alternative turns out to be having the NSA and FBI attacking the citizens.
I was typing in a hurry. That should be Pu-239. Anyway, try to stay within your protective skin. Without your skin to protect you, plutonium can be dangerous. So don't eat it.
First , it's not "exaggerated in a way" - nothing leaked out of the tank. The story, as presented above,"is complete BS.
You talk about long-term, so I guess you're thinking of the plutonium 239 at the site. The radiation from U239 is stopped by skin, water, etc. So you can pretty safely carry it in your pocket. In fact, I DO carry a similar radioactive material in my pocket. It's not suggested that you eat U239, though. Much like bleach, toilet bowel cleaner, etc, eating it would be bad for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The Amazon and southeast Asia rainforests are south of the Sahara, and closer the equator.
In case you were thinking deserts are in hot places, Antartica is also a desert.
> Get real, this is bullshit. Anybody who has or uses an AK47 is not someone who stores meaningful data on a computer.
The armed forces of about 60 countries have and use the AK-47.
ISIL has about a billion dollars. They acquired $429 million when they took over the Mosul branch of the Central Bank of Iraq, and they now run retail bank branches in the territory the occupy. They "govern" a population of about 4 million, roughly half the size of Switzerland or Israel, and a bit larger than Barcelona or Houston.
ISIL has captured Syrian MiG-23 fighter jets, and demonstrated the use of Mohajer 4 drones captured from Syria and Iran. They have the M1A1M Abrams tank captured from the Iraqi army.
ISIL is a quasi-government, with not only a significant military administered by computers, but civil infrastructure as well - a tax system, payroll for 200,000 employees, etc. If you thought ISIL was a few guys riding around on camels, that's not quite true.
Suppose someone with $10 billion dollars moves to the US. That's a short list of possible names, but that's beside the point. So they move to the US. First, they probably build a $100 million house/estate. That's $100 million paid to local workers, and $100 million added to gdp. Next maybe they get a $100,000 security system, paying local workers to set that up, putting $100,000 into the pockets of local workers. That's more GDP. That's the first few weeks they are here.
> nothing changes at all for any person in the country
Some of us like having jobs, especially jobs doing high-end work, which pays well.
> Idon't know ... actually I don't care .
That's unfortunate. At least you KNOW that you don't know.
Either way, I'm pretty sure neither 1960 nor 1990 is the within the last decade.
Not too hard to look up Germany too:
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
We see that Germany's per gdp (production per person) is about 18% lower than the US. Of that, government consumption per capita is higher by a similar amount. So the country has a bit less, and the government takes a bit more.
Let's see, decade means "ten years", so the last ten years. Do the data cover just the last ten years? Nope.
Or, you can say decade as in 1980s, 1990s, etc. This is the 2010s, so the previous decade would be the 2000s. Does the data stop before 2000? Nope.
Why don't you tell me which definition of "decade" you're using that makes any sense whatsoever.
Even better, why not look at more data, going all the way back to the founding of the Soviet Union. Notice how GDP and other measures of prosperity are ALWAYS at least 90% or so lower than the US during the same time period? Notice how it was so bad the country failed, ceased to exist?
> I suggest cutting rent by 85%. Landlords do not need to be making that much money.
Average rent is about 110% of the cost to own the property- mortgage, property taxes, maintenance, etc. So a property that rents for $11,000/year costs the landlord about $10,000/ rentable year, including vacancy month.
You propose cutting the rent to about $900/year. The cost to the landlord being about $10,000, buying a house and renting it out would mean you'd lose $9,100/year. Obviously virtually nobody is stupid enough to do that; nobody would rent out a house. That's how you end up with shanty towns like you see in Mexico city.
Three years ago, I went back to school. I highly recommend it. Having a clue is nice.
> If someone (hypothetically) lives in an area where the income is $100 a month, but basic amenities are free
The $400/month includes ALL value available, whether that's delivered via government (what you call "free") or by any other means whatever. You compare different economic systems by looking at GDP per capita. That's the total "stuff" produced by a country (food, cars, gas, radios, medicine, everything ) divided by the total number of people. The Soviet Union produced $400 worth of stuff per person.
How it's delivered, whether by taxation and government allocation, private purchases, or any other method doesn't affect it. Each person in the US got nine times as much stuff each month, on average, because the competitive economy produced nine times as much stuff.
> Seeing as you are posting economic data from the last decade
The word "decade" means ten years. Same root as "decimal". Twenty-five or thirty years years ago is a tad more than a decade.
> In the USSR everybody had a job (it was actually mandatory for adults who are not studying),
Mandatory via the government, you say? Meaning the police would show up and drag you to work if you didn't show up on time? Sounds awesome!
> which means that 1) there was less time for drinking (showing up drunk at work was not OK)
Yeah NOBODY drinks in Russia. They don't have a HUGE problem with alcoholism.
> and 2) everybody had some money
1/9th as much as their peers in the USA, to be exact. (About $400/month)
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
You're seriously suggesting that cutting average income by over 85% is a good idea? You REALLY want to live on $400 per month? You can do that already, if that's what you really want.
The vast majority of CPUs sold in the last three years run Android. Did you make that post from an antique Windows desktop?
Let's start with your first two sentences:
> you are naive if you think that you can avoid rebooting for all Linux updates. Obviously a kernel update is going to require a reboot
You are mistaken. What is "obvious" to you is not in fact true. Since the beginning, we've been able to upgrade the majority of the kernel with nothing more than "rmmod foo && insmod foo". I've been doing that for twenty years. Seventeen years ago, we gained the ability to upgrade the kernel core live. That's now a default feature of kernels from Redhat and other major distros.
I could go on and similarly address the rest of your misinformed post, but I think it's sufficiently clear that you're at least thoroughly misinformed, if not actually suffering from Stockholm syndrome, defending the organization which holds your business captive.
It's long been true that one could buy a phone similar to last-year's model at a reasonable cost. Since there haven't been any radical improvements for a few years, there's no longer any reason to spend $650 on the hottest new thing. No reason to replace a phone that works fine, and when you do need a new phone the $120 model will do fine.
That shift has several effects, one of which is that carrier subsidies on phone purchases, in which the buyer pays for the $650 phone through a higher monthly bill on contract, have become kinda pointless. No reason not to buy a $120 phone up-front, then get $30 service with no contract.
In Microsoft's heyday, people would anxiously await the opportunity to pay $120 to upgrade to the new version. New bells, whistles, and blue screens.
Now many people are trying hard to avoid Microsoft's "upgrade" to Windows 10. More and more people go through the trouble of removing the Windows install that came with their computer, to replace it with a less troublesome OS. They want to get rid of Windows.
Microsoft's last-ditch solution is to try to get their few remaining hostages and fanboys to not only pay for MS software, but to keep paying again and again every month. I feel for anyone who's either stuck in a position where they have to keep paying every month for software most people don't even want for free, or who simply doesn't know any better, they're probably still paying $25/month for AOL too.
No doubt, the B-52's ability to deliver 70,000 pounds of munitions AND hit singles and is quite a bit more bulk firepower than the F-35.
I just wanted to point out that it's capability IS enough to be pretty devastating- I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. The problems the program has had, which are real, are also grossly over-hyped, imho. Therefore it's worth pointing out that it is a capable platform (albeit expensive) .
If a cruise missile is the best choice for a particular stealth strike mission, you'd probably use the AGM-158 JASSM. The AGM-158 can be delivered by:
B-1 Lancer
B-2 Spirit
B-52 Stratofortress
F-15E Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F/A-18 Hornet
F-35 block future
Most of would negate the missile's low-observable advantage, of course. For stealth, there are far fewer options.
Something like the Tomahawk is well-suited to smaller unoccupied structures or ships that are within range of a naval vessel, where it's okay if they see it coming three hours ahead of time (and you don't mind waiting for it to get there). An Ohio class submarine with 154 Tomahawk missiles on board can lay waste to a city. If you want to strike sooner, or"stealthier, the F-35 flies twice as fast as the Tomahawk. Obviously the fighter is also capable of destroying enemy vehicles, including enemy planes. You don't fire a cruise missle at a plane.
> drop a small but significant load of weapons and get out.
More specifically, armament can include:
eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s (air-to-air load)
six 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s (air-to-ground)
Each 2,000 USAF bomb can penetrate up to 15 inches of metal or 11 ft of concrete, depending on the height from which it is dropped, and cause lethal fragmentation to a radius of 1200 feet.
Small by USAF standards, but sufficient for each plane to take out several hardened structures on each flight.
No, Apple didn't send the TVs anywhere. Apple sent a check to a recycling company in exchange for X million pounds of their recycling credits, as required by law.
> If you bounced microwaves in a truncated cone, thrust would be produced out the open end. Most scientists have snorted at the idea
I can see why porcine scientists would snort with approval. After all, if you bounce refrigerators around in a truncated cone (nozzle), they'll produce thrust as they exit the narrow end. If you bounce toasters around, they'll produce thrust out the nozzle. Same with coffee makers. Therefore, if you bounce microwaves around a nozzle ...
> How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"
That's false because the article is based on data that isn't about recycling phones. Mostly it's CRT televisions and monitors. So if we take out the incorrect words "from phones", we get "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold". Of course "Apple recycled" isn't true either, so take that out. The (possibly) true part is "$40 million worth of gold". So half the words are true, half aren't.
Assume for a moment that none of the citizens serving in our military would fight on the right side. I present to you the following examples of the US government using its "rocket launchers" vs a "clearly outmatched" population:
Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
It turns out that a determined population isn't readily defeated by even the strongest military in the world.
Consider further what happens when even a single B-2 pilot decides to put 80 JDAM-equipped guided bombs into the White House and whatever other government targets he chooses to eliminate. Any one of the 18 Ohio-class submarines could use its 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles to remove Washington.
https://supporters.eff.org/don...
I'd forget if I waited until later.
I've worked in information security for a long time. I 've spoken with colleagues at various government agencies and learned that indeed they don't have a expertise far beyond what's available in the private sector; the movies are as fictional in that respect as they are in others. They do need assistance from the private side of the infosec community.
Fifteen years ago, I would have been happy to assist those who protect and serve if they were working on some actual crime, such as a murder case I was once contacted about. Since Snowden and other events, it's become quite clear that the federal government is not the good guys, for any definition of "good guys".
There's no single solution, but there is one thing that would really help. Prior to 9/11, international spy agencies such as the NSA were prohibited from sharing information with domestic police at agencies such as the FBI. The thinking was that the techniques and mindset used against our enemies, such as North Korea, shouldn't be used against our own citizens. After 9/11 it was determined (correctly) that the prohibition on cooperation made it more difficult to defend against attacks, so the rules were weakened or eliminated and cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement was encouraged. We need to put those walls back in place. Yes it will make defending against attacks more difficult, but it's worth it because the alternative turns out to be having the NSA and FBI attacking the citizens.
I was typing in a hurry. That should be Pu-239. Anyway, try to stay within your protective skin. Without your skin to protect you, plutonium can be dangerous. So don't eat it.
First , it's not "exaggerated in a way" - nothing leaked out of the tank. The story, as presented above,"is complete BS.
You talk about long-term, so I guess you're thinking of the plutonium 239 at the site. The radiation from U239 is stopped by skin, water, etc. So you can pretty safely carry it in your pocket. In fact, I DO carry a similar radioactive material in my pocket. It's not suggested that you eat U239, though. Much like bleach, toilet bowel cleaner, etc, eating it would be bad for you.