And if a doctor knowing prescribed one and it was not necessary for the life of the mother or the mother was not fully informed of the danger he would be in legal trouble.
Actually it was a partisan attack. "The civilian aircraft control system has been chronically underfunded for decades, since Reagan fired PATCO. One of the things they were on strike for was for better equipment to do their jobs better, easier, and with less stress. Even in the 80's, the computers and radars were dinosaurs best kept in a museum. Upgrades since then have always been a day late and a dollar short."
From the statement you can see that the attack is in the "statement since Reagan fired PATCO" Yet he also states that one of the reasons for the strike was the outdated equipment they were using so the lack of funding would actually predate the firing of the members of PATCO.
It is logical that one partisan attack would inspire others.
BTW yes the ATC system has had issues for decades with a really botched upgrade. All political parties are can share the blame.
"But it's okay if the woman smokes, drinks heavily, does drugs or is obese while pregnant, right? " No it isn't Obese is a health risk for the mother not really the baby BTW. Doing drugs is also illegal.
"The point is, BVR didn't work specifically against an old but agile adversary." The MIG 25 IS NOT AGILE. From the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s). " BVR did not work because the MIG-25 was too fast and outside of the kill envelope of the Sparrow. Dogfighting and the MIG-25 just do not fit together. It is not agile at all and is the classic example of a BVR platform. It flies high, and fast so it's missiles start with an energy advantage, has a large radar, and is just slightly more maneuverable than the space shuttle. A MIG-25 could not win a dogfight with an F-4 much less and F-15,F-16,F18, F-22, or an F-35.
F-15s not shooting down the Mig-25 I knew but they fired at a Mig25 in a tail chase with Sparrows. Not shocking. The second Mig still did not get a kill. The first story in your link was a Mig 25 taking out an F-18 which would have won a dogfight. Again every engagement you reference was a shoot and scoot without a dogfight to be seen. Again you are making the point that dogfighting does not really matter.
" Mig-25s were fired at with multiple missile salvos but managed to evade all of them, fired back at close range and then turned around and just outran the opposing F-15s." Never heard of an instance when a Mig-25 evaded multiple missile salvos do you have a reference? Even if you do the Mig-25 did not dogfight. If they were dumb enough to get into a turning battle it would have been toast. Kind of proves the point actually.
"We could have been fighting an army with accurate and effective ballistic missiles" Not really, accurate ballistic missiles took until the 1960s and the development of ICs.
jet fighters? The US was well on the way to matching and beating the Germans. The F-80 was in production at the end of the war. The F86 would have been rushed and the US was already researching swept wings before the german research showed up at our door. It does not really matter since germany would have been facing the Allies with very effective high altitude bombers like the B-29 and B-36 armed with nuclear weapons. And Jet Bombers like the B-45 also armed with nuclear weapons.
Germany was ahead in a some areas like rockets but not as as far ahead as most people believe. The difference in jet fighters is simple Germany rushed jets into service because they were desperate. The US didn't feel a real need to rush them into service since they were winning. The UK were also cautious but not as cautions as the US because they faced a physical risk of bombing. The US put most of it's research resources into long rang bombers, atomic weapons, and electronics. Germany went for Rockets, Tanks, and Jets but they also had to deal with Hitler.
Funny but they said the same thing about the F-15 and the F-14 back in the day. The real truth seems to be that they planners in the early 60 that said dog fights are dead where wrong then but correct now. 1. The F35 is not really a fighter. It is a strike aircraft that can defend itself. The F-22 is the fighter. 2. If you are in a dogfight in a 5th gen aircraft you are doing it wrong. You should have already used your BVR missiles and headed home. Peacetime intercepts that go very bad are the exception to this rule and those are very rare.
I would agree that we need more F-22s I can even see a need for in improved F-15 with supercruise and a big honking sensor package. Maybe as in improved Strike Eagle. But it is not all about turning and burning today. It is about sensor and stealth. It should also be about supercruise which the F22 has but they did not put into the F35 which I feel is the big error.
Greg Bear wrote a story using anti matter to destroy the Earth. It was two projectiles one made of neutronum and one made of anti-neutronium. and yes they blew up in the core along with some large fusion bombs planted along the plate boundaries.
That does not matter in the legal world. CBC violated the copyright by showing it. So you go after CBC. If CBC can then say that they did this because CNN said they could. The court could then rule that the CBC has to pay and then the CBC can go after CNN or that CBC was acting in good faith and that the plaintiff needs to go after CNN. Both are common outcomes.
Actually copyrights have always been good. The extensions of copyright are bad. The making copyright infringement a criminal verses a civil offense is bad. The limiting of moving between media like ripping CDs and DVDs for personal use is bad. The massive awards for file sharing are bad. Laws that help content creators get paid are good.
If they support remote debugging using Visual Studio it will be enough to get a lot of people interested. I love Linux but VS is a really good IDE. "The next thing you will hear is the You do not need an IDE Emacs and gdb is good enough crowd."
I saw that you apologised in another post for being off by a factor of 1000. I assume you will not reply anymore to this thread since you were so snarky and yet so clearly wrong.
Just to put this into perspective for you. A 50MW battery would would hold less than 1 minute of output from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The average over a year is about 15 minutes. So to just replace that one power plant you would need with Solar you would need 64 times that size at a minimum a 3.2 GW battery system. It does not matter if it is a bunch of small battery packs or one big one the total is 3.2 GW which is HUGE!
It looks like reading is. From this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "As of 2008, sodium–sulfur batteries are only manufactured by one group, the NGK/TEPCO consortium, which is producing 90 MW of storage capacity each year.[11]" So it would take 555 years to make one 50 GW battery installation.
"Japan Wind Development has opened a 51 MW wind farm that incorporates a 34 MW sodium sulfur battery system at Futamata in Aomori Prefecture in May 2008.[11]" Yea that is not close to 50 GW.
"As of 2007, 165 MW of capacity were installed in Japan, and NGK has announced in 2008 a plan to expand its NaS factory output from 90 MW a year to 150 MW a year.[13] (Source in Japanese, but with some pictures.)" So if they did increase this by 150MW a year it would take 332 years.
And this linke https://www.ngk.co.jp/nas/ [ngk.co.jp] Has a single case study in Japan for a 51MW system which is 1000 times smaller than you claimed.
Your statement was "There are multiple 50+GW battery installations in Japan" and your links actually back this up as pure fantasy. So unless you made an error in size by a factor of 1000 and after a snarky reply failed to catch it, you are living in a fantasy land. So give me a link to a single 50 GW battery system. The largest I found was 500MW.
"There are multiple 50+GW battery installations in Japan" Really where? I did a google search I found 500mw battery in CA and a 36 MW in China both are 1/100th the size of the installations you claim. Unless you have a reference you are living in fantasy land.
Slashdot Mirror
These are barges in a bay not ships as sea. So those are non-issues.
And if a doctor knowing prescribed one and it was not necessary for the life of the mother or the mother was not fully informed of the danger he would be in legal trouble.
Actually it was a partisan attack.
"The civilian aircraft control system has been chronically underfunded for decades, since Reagan fired PATCO. One of the things they were on strike for was for better equipment to do their jobs better, easier, and with less stress. Even in the 80's, the computers and radars were dinosaurs best kept in a museum. Upgrades since then have always been a day late and a dollar short."
From the statement you can see that the attack is in the "statement since Reagan fired PATCO"
Yet he also states that one of the reasons for the strike was the outdated equipment they were using so the lack of funding would actually predate the firing of the members of PATCO.
It is logical that one partisan attack would inspire others.
BTW yes the ATC system has had issues for decades with a really botched upgrade. All political parties are can share the blame.
"But it's okay if the woman smokes, drinks heavily, does drugs or is obese while pregnant, right? "
No it isn't Obese is a health risk for the mother not really the baby BTW.
Doing drugs is also illegal.
32 is enough for me but I run VMs.
"The point is, BVR didn't work specifically against an old but agile adversary."
The MIG 25 IS NOT AGILE.
From the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s). "
BVR did not work because the MIG-25 was too fast and outside of the kill envelope of the Sparrow. Dogfighting and the MIG-25 just do not fit together. It is not agile at all and is the classic example of a BVR platform. It flies high, and fast so it's missiles start with an energy advantage, has a large radar, and is just slightly more maneuverable than the space shuttle. A MIG-25 could not win a dogfight with an F-4 much less and F-15,F-16,F18, F-22, or an F-35.
F-15s not shooting down the Mig-25 I knew but they fired at a Mig25 in a tail chase with Sparrows. Not shocking.
The second Mig still did not get a kill.
The first story in your link was a Mig 25 taking out an F-18 which would have won a dogfight.
Again every engagement you reference was a shoot and scoot without a dogfight to be seen.
Again you are making the point that dogfighting does not really matter.
" Mig-25s were fired at with multiple missile salvos but managed to evade all of them, fired back at close range and then turned around and just outran the opposing F-15s."
Never heard of an instance when a Mig-25 evaded multiple missile salvos do you have a reference?
Even if you do the Mig-25 did not dogfight. If they were dumb enough to get into a turning battle it would have been toast. Kind of proves the point actually.
Large, fast, massive IO, and extremely reliable computers running a POSIX or POSIX like OS.
"We could have been fighting an army with accurate and effective ballistic missiles"
Not really, accurate ballistic missiles took until the 1960s and the development of ICs.
jet fighters?
The US was well on the way to matching and beating the Germans. The F-80 was in production at the end of the war. The F86 would have been rushed and the US was already researching swept wings before the german research showed up at our door.
It does not really matter since germany would have been facing the Allies with very effective high altitude bombers like the B-29 and B-36 armed with nuclear weapons. And Jet Bombers like the B-45 also armed with nuclear weapons.
Germany was ahead in a some areas like rockets but not as as far ahead as most people believe. The difference in jet fighters is simple Germany rushed jets into service because they were desperate. The US didn't feel a real need to rush them into service since they were winning. The UK were also cautious but not as cautions as the US because they faced a physical risk of bombing. The US put most of it's research resources into long rang bombers, atomic weapons, and electronics. Germany went for Rockets, Tanks, and Jets but they also had to deal with Hitler.
Funny but they said the same thing about the F-15 and the F-14 back in the day.
The real truth seems to be that they planners in the early 60 that said dog fights are dead where wrong then but correct now.
1. The F35 is not really a fighter. It is a strike aircraft that can defend itself. The F-22 is the fighter.
2. If you are in a dogfight in a 5th gen aircraft you are doing it wrong. You should have already used your BVR missiles and headed home. Peacetime intercepts that go very bad are the exception to this rule and those are very rare.
I would agree that we need more F-22s I can even see a need for in improved F-15 with supercruise and a big honking sensor package. Maybe as in improved Strike Eagle.
But it is not all about turning and burning today. It is about sensor and stealth. It should also be about supercruise which the F22 has but they did not put into the F35 which I feel is the big error.
Greg Bear wrote a story using anti matter to destroy the Earth. It was two projectiles one made of neutronum and one made of anti-neutronium. and yes they blew up in the core along with some large fusion bombs planted along the plate boundaries.
That does not matter in the legal world.
CBC violated the copyright by showing it. So you go after CBC. If CBC can then say that they did this because CNN said they could. The court could then rule that the CBC has to pay and then the CBC can go after CNN or that CBC was acting in good faith and that the plaintiff needs to go after CNN.
Both are common outcomes.
just when I my mod points are gone so I can not mod this as offtopic.
Actually copyrights have always been good. The extensions of copyright are bad. The making copyright infringement a criminal verses a civil offense is bad. The limiting of moving between media like ripping CDs and DVDs for personal use is bad. The massive awards for file sharing are bad.
Laws that help content creators get paid are good.
my guess is that they are not very conductive so the color is not much of an issue.
The plastic is probably not very conductive so the heat is not bad.
Visual Studio.
After working with Kiel for a while I learned to really like Visual Studio.
If they support remote debugging using Visual Studio it will be enough to get a lot of people interested.
I love Linux but VS is a really good IDE.
"The next thing you will hear is the You do not need an IDE Emacs and gdb is good enough crowd."
I saw that you apologised in another post for being off by a factor of 1000. I assume you will not reply anymore to this thread since you were so snarky and yet so clearly wrong.
Just to put this into perspective for you.
A 50MW battery would would hold less than 1 minute of output from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The average over a year is about 15 minutes. So to just replace that one power plant you would need with Solar you would need 64 times that size at a minimum a 3.2 GW battery system. It does not matter if it is a bunch of small battery packs or one big one the total is 3.2 GW which is HUGE!
It looks like reading is.
From this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"As of 2008, sodium–sulfur batteries are only manufactured by one group, the NGK/TEPCO consortium, which is producing 90 MW of storage capacity each year.[11]"
So it would take 555 years to make one 50 GW battery installation.
"Japan Wind Development has opened a 51 MW wind farm that incorporates a 34 MW sodium sulfur battery system at Futamata in Aomori Prefecture in May 2008.[11]"
Yea that is not close to 50 GW.
"As of 2007, 165 MW of capacity were installed in Japan, and NGK has announced in 2008 a plan to expand its NaS factory output from 90 MW a year to 150 MW a year.[13] (Source in Japanese, but with some pictures.)"
So if they did increase this by 150MW a year it would take 332 years.
And this linke https://www.ngk.co.jp/nas/ [ngk.co.jp]
Has a single case study in Japan for a 51MW system which is 1000 times smaller than you claimed.
Your statement was "There are multiple 50+GW battery installations in Japan" and your links actually back this up as pure fantasy. So unless you made an error in size by a factor of 1000 and after a snarky reply failed to catch it, you are living in a fantasy land.
So give me a link to a single 50 GW battery system. The largest I found was 500MW.
Yep it is right up with Clinton Denies killing babies.
"There are multiple 50+GW battery installations in Japan"
Really where?
I did a google search I found 500mw battery in CA and a 36 MW in China both are 1/100th the size of the installations you claim.
Unless you have a reference you are living in fantasy land.
Get back to me when you have that worked out.
No it is not the answer but if it improves the lives of the women than it is a good thing.
Not to mention burning witches.