Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled
Dismantling them would be stupid, we do have a legitimate need for SIGINT. What should happen instead is that they should be split into several agencies with increased oversight and more narrowly defined missions. At the very least the domestic and foreign capabilities should be split.
Of course, in order for that to be helpful it needs to be a better choice than a Humvee. That means it needs to be smaller, more mobile, more fuel efficient. Manage that with a reasonable level of reliability (it has to be better than a mule) then sure, the troops will cheer all day long.
I don't really see this as being a problem. It might temporarily displace some people when some new kind of automation replaces something (and change can be scary), generally the same advancing technology that caused the displacement opens up opportunities elsewhere.
Previous technologies have been complements to humans, a sufficiently capable robot would be a substitute for humans and that's a whole different ballgame.
The easiest kinds of jobs to automate are usually the most menial.
Nonsense, the easiest kinds of jobs to automate are the most routine, which is not the same as the most menial.
Progressive income taxes have resulted in the largest debt in the history of mankind.
Government is a strange beast certainly, but we have not yet reached the level of unreality where taxes create debt. Debt is created when spending exceeds taxation. Of course in our monetary system that's actually a requirement since we have a trade imbalance.
Poor voters don't bear the full brunt of the economic burden they are lashing to their more successful neighbors, which is a conflict of interest if there ever was one. Taxes should be made as regressive as possible.
In what fantasy world do the poor voters get the upper hand on helpless rich folks? While our system may seem on the surface to favor the mass of voters, in practice it's fully controlled by the moneyed interests as can be seen by the policies created which increase levels of income and wealth inequality. Republics, being a messy business, do indeed suffer from a problem of politicians buying off the voters with bread and circuses but don't let that distract you from the vast looting that is going on behind the scenes.
Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
That sounds like an employment nightmare and a legal minefield. I doubt this was the intent and it doesn't sound like a good idea.
All taxation systems suck and are exploitable, some suck less than others. The case you're bringing up is why I chose median income as the "expenses" part rather than attempting to define a list of expenses. *shrug* Direct income taxation is a bad method in the first place.
Well, personally I think the whole PV in space plan is the wrong approach, we really should be talking about orbital solar concentrators instead.
Specifically about CMEs, I know they reduce cosmic radiation but increase proton damage, how big a deal that is for this sort of project I honestly don't know. I do know that the solution doesn't have to be perfect for it to be useful. The most likely outcome in the future is that we're going to be using a broad range of power sources rather than the "one true source of power".
Maybe, it depends on how you define consumption. If you use a narrow definition that sort of tax would be incredibly regressive. If you're going to tax individuals directly (which I don't think is really the best system) then you should probably use something along the lines of a flat tax on profits, with profit being defined as anything over the median income. (anything below that is pretty much guaranteed to be cost of living expenses in any rational definition)
The correct balance is probably to allow it for sole proprietorships but not parternships or corporations. That way individuals aren't forced to violate their conscience while groups are required to conform to societal norms. If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue. This makes both sides unhappy, so it's likely the best compromise solution.
That is because Nuclear power is as much of a threat to the environment as coal is.
That would be incorrect. Nuclear power A) Causes less deaths per kwh, B) Releases less CO2 per kwh, C) Releases less radiation per kwh, D) Doesn't release all sorts of other hazardous materials into the air like mercury & Arsenic, E) Doesn't require the same level of strip mining due to much higher fuel energy density.
Compared to coal, nuclear power is so green it might as well be Irish. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand math.
Since the space based system isn't exposed to regular moisture or oxidation though I'd bet most of it would actually last longer rather than less. The exception being the electronics package due to the aforementioned radiation, though that should be something you could deal with by putting in some redundancy, hardening and shielding. (obviously at some cost though the area protected wouldn't be particularly large).
On the other hand the Yamato class had an 8285 mile range, the distance between Japan and Hawaii is 4107 miles. Although fleets normally bring bunker ships with extra fuel I did find a statement on wikipedia with regards to a third air strike wave "The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home" Of course if you take the island and seize the fuel reserves there you obviously A) Don't have to sail home and B) Now have more fuel.
So it looks like it would have required extra resources in terms of troop carriers and bunker ships plus some willingness to take risks. Of course freeing up the three divisions they'd likely need to take the island and having enough shipping available would mean curtailing one of their other objectives. They had about 11 divisions available with enough shipping to move them around. The Philippines and Malaya were essential in order to prevent US and British forces from raiding their supply lines so that's about six divisions unavailable. If they abandoned their plan to initially take Burma and delayed the invasion of Thailand and the US outer islands I think they could have scraped three divisions together along with enough transport. Of course they wouldn't be able to leave them all there, but they could have seized the island and then reposition two divisions afterwards leaving a single division as defense.
*shrug* High command would probably never have approved such a risky venture in the first place, but if they did it's reasonably likely they could have pulled it off at a cost of some progress on their other objectives.
I'm not sure exactly what the strike distance was but I know that it was less than 500 miles since Admiral Yamamoto initially considered a 500 mile "suicide" strike before his officers convinced him it was unnecessary in order to achieve surprise. The flight time is described as 90 minutes and the max air speed of a "Kate" Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber is only 235 mph so they were definitely within 352 miles. So, let's use a reasonable estimate of 300 miles. A Japanese battleship of that era could travel at 27 knots (about 31 mph) at flank speed. Every navy does things a bit differently but a reasonable cruising speed would be at 2/3rds power, so at 20mph they could have arrived there 15 hours after the initial strike.
At the time, General Short was concerned that the Japanese would follow up with an invasion the day after the strike so this isn't just fantasy. To be fair, the Army had about 43,000 troops there, with roughly two divisions worth of combat power though few were veterans, many were new recruits and about a third were national guard troops. With total air superiority and heavy naval gunfire it would have likely been possible to smash up the defenses and support an opposed landing. Seizure of the naval fuel supply depot would have allowed the Japanese fleet to roam the area at will and forced us to send a very heavy force to attempt to retake the island. Given their greater number of aircraft carriers at that time it's possible they could have forced a decisive battle prior to Midway with better results. In the end, it probably doesn't matter as they had no hope of successfully invading the west coast and that means eventually we would have produced a fleet of sufficient size to smash them. Still, many parts of the war were very sensitive timing wise and this could have delayed our efforts against Germany with negative consequences.
Well, I'm American, thought that was obvious, so when I say "our" I mean the US one.
The current US immigration policy is dumb in a variety of ways, describing them all would take a huge thread all it's own, but at least we tend to let in immigrants on a regular basis. Many other countries throughout the world are actually anti-immigrant, Japan being a prime example.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled
Dismantling them would be stupid, we do have a legitimate need for SIGINT. What should happen instead is that they should be split into several agencies with increased oversight and more narrowly defined missions. At the very least the domestic and foreign capabilities should be split.
If you think that Saddam or Bennito or Idi or Fidel thought they were doing the best for their people, you are sadly mistaken.
They just had a narrower definition of "their people" than you seem to be using.
Of course, in order for that to be helpful it needs to be a better choice than a Humvee. That means it needs to be smaller, more mobile, more fuel efficient. Manage that with a reasonable level of reliability (it has to be better than a mule) then sure, the troops will cheer all day long.
SystemD of course, Init would never be complicated enough to achieve sentience on its own.
I don't really see this as being a problem. It might temporarily displace some people when some new kind of automation replaces something (and change can be scary), generally the same advancing technology that caused the displacement opens up opportunities elsewhere.
Previous technologies have been complements to humans, a sufficiently capable robot would be a substitute for humans and that's a whole different ballgame.
The easiest kinds of jobs to automate are usually the most menial.
Nonsense, the easiest kinds of jobs to automate are the most routine, which is not the same as the most menial.
If it doesn't need to walk, it's not really a dog is it?
So, would you consider O to be conservative or liberal?
Moderate corporatist.
Progressive income taxes have resulted in the largest debt in the history of mankind.
Government is a strange beast certainly, but we have not yet reached the level of unreality where taxes create debt. Debt is created when spending exceeds taxation. Of course in our monetary system that's actually a requirement since we have a trade imbalance.
Poor voters don't bear the full brunt of the economic burden they are lashing to their more successful neighbors, which is a conflict of interest if there ever was one. Taxes should be made as regressive as possible.
In what fantasy world do the poor voters get the upper hand on helpless rich folks? While our system may seem on the surface to favor the mass of voters, in practice it's fully controlled by the moneyed interests as can be seen by the policies created which increase levels of income and wealth inequality. Republics, being a messy business, do indeed suffer from a problem of politicians buying off the voters with bread and circuses but don't let that distract you from the vast looting that is going on behind the scenes.
Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
That sounds like an employment nightmare and a legal minefield. I doubt this was the intent and it doesn't sound like a good idea.
All taxation systems suck and are exploitable, some suck less than others. The case you're bringing up is why I chose median income as the "expenses" part rather than attempting to define a list of expenses. *shrug* Direct income taxation is a bad method in the first place.
Well, personally I think the whole PV in space plan is the wrong approach, we really should be talking about orbital solar concentrators instead.
Specifically about CMEs, I know they reduce cosmic radiation but increase proton damage, how big a deal that is for this sort of project I honestly don't know. I do know that the solution doesn't have to be perfect for it to be useful. The most likely outcome in the future is that we're going to be using a broad range of power sources rather than the "one true source of power".
Maybe, it depends on how you define consumption. If you use a narrow definition that sort of tax would be incredibly regressive. If you're going to tax individuals directly (which I don't think is really the best system) then you should probably use something along the lines of a flat tax on profits, with profit being defined as anything over the median income. (anything below that is pretty much guaranteed to be cost of living expenses in any rational definition)
The correct balance is probably to allow it for sole proprietorships but not parternships or corporations. That way individuals aren't forced to violate their conscience while groups are required to conform to societal norms. If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue. This makes both sides unhappy, so it's likely the best compromise solution.
Sure that can happen. I'd want to see some numbers on how much of a problem it really is though.
That is because Nuclear power is as much of a threat to the environment as coal is.
That would be incorrect. Nuclear power A) Causes less deaths per kwh, B) Releases less CO2 per kwh, C) Releases less radiation per kwh, D) Doesn't release all sorts of other hazardous materials into the air like mercury & Arsenic, E) Doesn't require the same level of strip mining due to much higher fuel energy density. Compared to coal, nuclear power is so green it might as well be Irish. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand math.
"statist" is an insult used by the kind of people who who call obama a muslim socialist
Quite right, he's a Baptist Corporatist, they need to get their facts straight.
He's using it the in the corporatist supporter context wherein anything done to restrain business is statist even if it favors individual liberty.
Or how exactly would YOU assemble a structure 100x100 meters or even 2x2 km in square in GEO?
Create a modular design and use remotely operated drones to assemble it.
Since the space based system isn't exposed to regular moisture or oxidation though I'd bet most of it would actually last longer rather than less. The exception being the electronics package due to the aforementioned radiation, though that should be something you could deal with by putting in some redundancy, hardening and shielding. (obviously at some cost though the area protected wouldn't be particularly large).
I don't have the remaining fuel data, but if you look at a map of the route they used it certainly looks like it was a small fraction of their trip:
http://www.history.army.mil/bo...
On the other hand the Yamato class had an 8285 mile range, the distance between Japan and Hawaii is 4107 miles. Although fleets normally bring bunker ships with extra fuel I did find a statement on wikipedia with regards to a third air strike wave "The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home" Of course if you take the island and seize the fuel reserves there you obviously A) Don't have to sail home and B) Now have more fuel.
So it looks like it would have required extra resources in terms of troop carriers and bunker ships plus some willingness to take risks. Of course freeing up the three divisions they'd likely need to take the island and having enough shipping available would mean curtailing one of their other objectives. They had about 11 divisions available with enough shipping to move them around. The Philippines and Malaya were essential in order to prevent US and British forces from raiding their supply lines so that's about six divisions unavailable. If they abandoned their plan to initially take Burma and delayed the invasion of Thailand and the US outer islands I think they could have scraped three divisions together along with enough transport. Of course they wouldn't be able to leave them all there, but they could have seized the island and then reposition two divisions afterwards leaving a single division as defense.
*shrug* High command would probably never have approved such a risky venture in the first place, but if they did it's reasonably likely they could have pulled it off at a cost of some progress on their other objectives.
Well, if we're looking at doable options then nuclear thermal is probably the best way to go.
I'm not sure exactly what the strike distance was but I know that it was less than 500 miles since Admiral Yamamoto initially considered a 500 mile "suicide" strike before his officers convinced him it was unnecessary in order to achieve surprise. The flight time is described as 90 minutes and the max air speed of a "Kate" Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber is only 235 mph so they were definitely within 352 miles. So, let's use a reasonable estimate of 300 miles. A Japanese battleship of that era could travel at 27 knots (about 31 mph) at flank speed. Every navy does things a bit differently but a reasonable cruising speed would be at 2/3rds power, so at 20mph they could have arrived there 15 hours after the initial strike.
At the time, General Short was concerned that the Japanese would follow up with an invasion the day after the strike so this isn't just fantasy. To be fair, the Army had about 43,000 troops there, with roughly two divisions worth of combat power though few were veterans, many were new recruits and about a third were national guard troops. With total air superiority and heavy naval gunfire it would have likely been possible to smash up the defenses and support an opposed landing. Seizure of the naval fuel supply depot would have allowed the Japanese fleet to roam the area at will and forced us to send a very heavy force to attempt to retake the island. Given their greater number of aircraft carriers at that time it's possible they could have forced a decisive battle prior to Midway with better results. In the end, it probably doesn't matter as they had no hope of successfully invading the west coast and that means eventually we would have produced a fleet of sufficient size to smash them. Still, many parts of the war were very sensitive timing wise and this could have delayed our efforts against Germany with negative consequences.
Well, I'm American, thought that was obvious, so when I say "our" I mean the US one. The current US immigration policy is dumb in a variety of ways, describing them all would take a huge thread all it's own, but at least we tend to let in immigrants on a regular basis. Many other countries throughout the world are actually anti-immigrant, Japan being a prime example.
can you write into the house buying contract, the requirement for inet connectivity?
You can write in virtually anything you want, of course the other party has to agree for it to be binding.
Well, if that's true he should be properly referred to as Comrade Limbaugh.