Geolocation is trivial for internet connected devices. It's not precise. But it works pretty well. I live outside Trenton, New Jersey. I know that when I see geo-targeted ads online, they're targeted at my area. Even if I'm on a fresh device that isn't signed into a google account, and doesn't have cookies on it yet. It's all done via the ISP.
The technology is never precise and it's not always accurate. But it's accurate more often than not, and finding forged notes with a code that says "Philadelphia Region" is at least a starting point for investigators.
This sounds good and all, but I did this. I worked for a company where I knew piracy was going on. I said something about it, went to my management, and was ignored. The practice continued. So a few months later, I went to the BSA.
A couple days later I got a nice "thanks, but no thanks" letter explaining that the BSA takes piracy very seriously but they would not be looking into this particular report.
I have no idea their reasoning for this, but the company in question was a reseller for Microsoft and lots of other BSA members. They may have simply not wanted to rock the boat.
So it sounds nice and all, but as others have pointed out, the BSA isn't a law enforcement agency and doesn't have any special powers, and as my incident illustrates, they may not even choose to investigate in their limited way in the first place.
BSA seems like lots of bark, but not so much bite.
I'm not exactly pro hunting, but the idea that hunting isn't biologically encoded is demonstrably false.
Ever own a cat or a dog? Given the opportunity, they hunt things all the time. A cat that has never seen a mouse or bird will happily give chase to a bug or a laser pointer, and exhibit stalking behavior. I've never owned dogs, but I've owned enough cats over my life to say for certain that this is not learned behavior from observing other cats.
That said, we're clearly different than a cat or a dog. Clearly using guns to hunt things is not genetic. But that doesn't mean there's not something there. It may just be less obvious.
I've long been fascinated by the concept of persistence hunting. The basic concept is that it exploits some advantages that humans have over almost all land animals over long distances - any quadraped that can out-sprint us, can't keep up a run as long as we can. A fit runner can outrun a horse, a deer, or anything else over a long enough distance. If you can outwit it too, you can chase it until it drops dead from exhaustion.
It's theorized that we evolved to fill this niche. We have no claws, or sharp teeth to take down prey. We aren't fast. And the fossil record shows human tool use goes back about 200,000 years. But humans as a species go back 1.8 - 2.0 Million years. So how did we hunt before knives, spears, or bows? Persistence hunting is thought to be the answer to this.
It's not conclusive. Only two isolated groups of primitive peoples are thought to still practice it (one in Central America, which has not been observed by outsiders, and one in Africa that has). But it makes sense, and the biology of humans as distance runners is true.
Is this the same as the drive a cat has chasing a mouse? I don't think so. But we are animals, and we do have certain things baked into our DNA.
Let's assume that they were in the wrong by operating the drones over the property of the shooters.
Is there some special South Carolina law that allows you to destroy someone else's property under those conditions?
Maybe they were within their rights to sue. Maybe the operators of the drone could have faced fines, or even jail time. But show me where the shooters derive the right to shoot at the drone, which is still the private property of another.
If my car got stuck in the mud on their property and I left it there while I arranged a tow, could they rightfully shoot at that too? Or is it just because they didn't like being spied on that makes it okay?
I agreed with you initially, but If you read through the posts attached to this story, there are quite a few reasonable arguments for doing so.
Basically they all boil down to this: If I'm a specialist now, and my company decided to eliminate my specialty, would I want to stay around, even if they agreed to retain me while I retrained on a new technology?
The answer might be yes if I wanted to learn a new skillset. If I'm a Linux admin who had never worked in a Windows environment and I thought this would be advantageous, that might be nice.
But what if my specialty doesn't translate well into the new technology ecosystem, or I'm a very senior specialist like a Systems Architect? I can see feeling devalued by the change and perhaps wanting to move on.
That said, I have the feeling that the person who submitted the question is not in that situation. By their question it seems like they just can't learn, or refuse to entirely out of ideology, which seems silly, given what we're talking about.
NDAA is not a good comparison to this legislation.
The NDAA is considered "must pass" legislation. While we can't know for sure what the President would have done had a bill landed on his desk separate from the NDAA, which included its controversial provisions, we do know that they cited the "must pass" nature of NDAA as the reason they reluctantly signed it into law.
This legislation, however is not attached to anything of the sort. It will pass or fail on its own merits. Congress can't use this as pressure, and the White House can't use it as an excuse.
I like your point, but I think you're missing out on something.
Radio isn't just used to tell stories. It's used to communicate. Nobody is telling stories in the cockpit of an aircraft, for instance. It's just communicating messages. Information back and forth.
There are lots of examples where this is true. And to extend your analogy with other species, there are plenty of other species that communicate on our own planet (even microbes!). It just so happens that the complexity of that communication seems to scale to a degree with the complexity of the organism. And it also so happens that we're the only species thus far that's developed the reasoning level and had the ability to develop tools to extend communication like radio.
Further, any other species that wishes to communicate over great distances on another world, regardless of whether or not they are culturally story tellers or not, will likely face similar problems to us, in terms of the physical limitations of passing messages across space within the universe (whether that space is a light year or a mile).
It stands to reason that similar solutions (radiation) will be sought. You could argue that they'd use different bands. Perhaps. We use the bands we use because they work best in our environment. For instance, most of our environment is opaque on the visual and IR bands, so that doesn't work. That's why we don't use those bands for much. Radio, on the other hand is easy to generate, can give you good range, is not very bad for you (like x-ray or gamma), and much of the world is transparent to it, so you don't need to worry about line of sight so much.
Now that said, we have no idea what they would transmit. Sound? Visuals? Digital representations of something? What are the odds that another intelligent civilization uses sound to communicate in the first place? I have no idea. If not sound, what? If a civilization is transmitting say, smell, or some abstraction of a sense we do not posses, how would we interpret this if we detected it? If we realized that it was intelligent, how would we decode it?
I agree. But I also agree that Israel's two-faced behavior contributes to some bigoted anti-semitic attitudes.
Israel isn't a free democratic state that has a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, and freedom from persecution. It is a "Jewish State". A democratic one that happens to be open to non-Jewish citizens, but they too often act as the "Jewish state" and alienate non-Jews. Particularly when they combat the Palestinians.
It's not all Israel's fault. The Palistinian and other Middle East state leaders have deamonized every action and made it a "those evil Jews" issue. But their insane, over-reactionary use of force, and the Zionist ideology doesn't help.
As an American, I've always been conflicted about Israel and our support for them. On the one hand, we ostensibly support them because they are a democracy. And true. They are (mostly). Arabs and Muslims are a well represented minority in government. They sit in the Knesset
But they are also this quasi-theocracy. This idea that one particular group of people (based on race or religion) should enjoy special protection, or special citizenship offends my ideals of equality. This would be entirely academic and probably something I could live with if Israel behaved themselves and treated dealt with the Palestinians in a way that seems humane, just, and in good faith. But while the Palestinians seem just as bad sometimes, I don't see them doing that.
The Arab Muslim population in Israel is a minority, but it's one that's growing faster than the Jewish majority. I am very curious to see how the Israeli government acts as this tipping point approaches. Will they stick to their democratic ideals? Or will keeping a "Jewish State" be more important?
But you're talking about the kind of behavior that would be considered reasonable for law enforcement before even obtaining a warrant. In fact, this behavior is sometimes required to build the evidence required to go to a judge for a warrant in the first place.
Stalking is illegal not because of simple privacy rules, or because the stalker might build a profile about you, but because it's a behavior that is frequently linked to violence.
Someone building a profile of your daily life may be undesirable. But can you make a case that it should protected against? I'm not certain that I have a right not to be skeeved out, nor that there is a case to be made for such a right to be enacted.
If you were to pass such rules, where would you place the limits on these restrictions? I've had daily commutes where I realized there was a car I'd see every day from my neighborhood to the same part of the city I worked in each day. I know what parking garage they parked in. I wasn't stalking them, we just took the same route on our commute five days a week. Is it different because I'm not a state actor? If that's the case, what about private cameras?
There are a lot of questions here, and I don't see a strong case for why there should be restrictions on what amounts to public information. But I'm open to hear ideas.
No. I don't. Can your neighbors see this? Passers by on the street? How is the camera different?
I'll grant you that it's a difference of degree because the camera can watch 24/7. But it's not a difference in kind. If I am somewhere where I have a reasonable expectation to be seen by other people, I think it's silly to complain about privacy and cameras.
But selective breeding for traits that are not inherited isn't Eugenics. It's not anything.
If you selectively breed for people who's middle initials is "K", you accomplish nothing. Because our names are not passed on genetically.
That economic status tends to prevail across generations is a happenstance of environment, not generics. Can the effect be the same as Eugenics? Sure. But it's not the same thing.
Morally equivalent? Perhaps. But not the same.
Let's take it a step further. If Eugenicists succeed, it pushes populations out of the breeding pool. Whatever race is deemed inferior will (if they're successful) disappear. No more black people, or jewish people, or whoever they deem undesirable.
But if you selectively breed out poor people, or people who like plaid, or anything else that's not passed on in genes, it doesn't keep other people from having those traits later. A person who has well off parents is likely to be well off themselves. But they're not guaranteed. The course their life takes can change that.
But a person born white, or a red head, or black or Persian will remain so his or her entire life. If you exterminate them, they're gone. That's the practical difference between this and Eugenics.
Again, I'm not supporting this. Just trying to explain that while there are similarities, it's not Eugenics.
The vulgar one has a point though. There are classes of software that are aimed at audiences that wouldn't want them if they had the skills to write them on their own.
Do you think that most children's games would exist if they had to be written by kids?
BASIC is this kind of problem. I suspect that nobody who ever wrote a BASIC interpreter had a practical use for it themselves. Maybe during the Apple II / TRS80 days, but certainly not more recently than that. In recent times, it's a tool for less experienced programmers to learn with and solve very simple problems, not a tool someone who could write software would employ to solve a practical problem.
Thanks for the info. Very interesting. It was my understanding that a big motivating factor was loiter time.
The military loves to tout pilot endurance as the limiting factor for mission time thanks to mid-air refueling. It was my understanding that a big part of this push was to further that. Any insight there?
If you had taken the time to read it before being so paranoid and dismissive, you'd learn the report acknokeges many of your concerns, including the EOS ring ergonomics.
Easy. With bottled air, you've got to cart around what you can breathe. You're limited by that, and it takes up space and weight.
The early F-16s didn't have OBOGS. When they got an engine upgrade (block 50, I think) they recieved OBOGS. From the company that builds the OBOGS, here's the advantages:
OBOGS presents considerable advantages over LOX, including: * Significant life cycle cost advantage * Improves safety * Weighs less than LOX * Reduces turn-around time * Extends the operational theater of aircraft * Enhances mission effectiveness * Eliminates LOX quantity management
workload in flight * Reduces logistics infrastructure * Eliminates the need for LOX generation,
servicing and storage * Eliminates Daily/Turn-around inspections * Eliminates âoeIâ level support
The problem is that if something goes wrong, you have to shut the system down. In this case a sensor detected hot air entering the system, which is a sign of a fire, or a potential cause of one. So the system shuts down, and the pilot needs to go to his emergency O2 supply. But this guy struggled trying to activate it. Possibly an ergonomic problem that needs to be addressed.
Generally speaking though, OBOGS is a sound, logical way to go.
This wasn't a case of extraordinary circumstances. This was calm, high altitude flight where a critical (but understood) subsystem failed.
The pilot then became distracted by the system failure possible because of oxygen deprivation, or because the emergency air control was in an ergonomically challenging location. While distracted, he became inverted (240 degree roll during descent) and didn't attempt to correct until 3 seconds prior to impact.
The ergonomic issue may be a contributing cause. but a pilot *must* be able to continue instrument scan while dealing with an emergency. Just because you're air doesn't work doesn't mean you can't still crash while dealing with that.
It's sad, but more or less understood what happened.
"Air bleed" is the method by which the OBOGS generates breathable air. It's called "bleed" because it "bleeds" off a small amount of air from the engine's compressor system. (This air can also be used for deicing flight surfaces, generating power, and other purposes).
An "air bleed failure" means that either no air is getting into the system, or a sensor failed and it thinks no air is getting into the system.
To summarize, this wasn't a failure where air was bleeding, this was a failure of the system that bleeds air from the engine for the pilot to breathe. That's important to understand.
The effect we're discussing is easily observable to anyone who's reasonably familiar with a kitchen.
Ever fry french fries in oil? This is typically what? 350F?
Baking a pizza will typically be around 450F.
Yet it's easy to reach into a 450 degree oven and remove the pizza. As long as you use a towel or a tool, your hand can be in the same environment that just cooked the pizza for a relatively long time..
But any fool knows that reaching into the oil with your bare hand *at all* will burn your skin in less than a second. Even though the oil is 100 degrees cooler than the oven.
It's just a dramatic, every-day example of the difference in heat transfer between mediums (in this case, oil vs air).
It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.
I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.
Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:
You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.
That said:
Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.
Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.
Take Keith Olbermann. Regardless of what you may think of him, his career has had him all over the place. Should he enjoy the same protections on ESPN as he did on MSNBC prior to Countdown (which was more news and less opinion) should that enjoy the same protection as Countdown which is largely opinion commentary? What about his Twitter account?
Most journalists will shy away from outlets that are not well regarded for journalistic integrity because they don't want to sully their own names via association. But just because it's rare, that doesn't mean that if a journalist DOES want to go work somewhere else that they should enjoy the same protections in both capacities.
Probably not for something like HTML, no. But for a new language, I'll pick up a book. Books will often be better constructed than online tutorials. YMMV of course.
I've always liked The Head First series in particular for some things. Especially for exposing someone who is new to a language or concept. The series is very novel and always reminded me of the "hers's how to do something fun" approach that the BASIC programming books I cut my teeth on had.
Is it any good for an experienced Java Programmer who wants to pick up C# or Objective C quickly? No. But they absolutely have their place.
But if you're traded, you need to show growth or some forecast that stock value will go up or you become a less attractive property for investors. Then your stock price goes down.
The end result is that corporations act myopicly in pursuit of high stock prices for each quarter. Long term strategy falls by the wayside.
I'm not saying I agree with the system, in fact I think it's fairly broken. But growth *does* matter the way the system is currently set up for publicly held companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Geolocation is trivial for internet connected devices. It's not precise. But it works pretty well. I live outside Trenton, New Jersey. I know that when I see geo-targeted ads online, they're targeted at my area. Even if I'm on a fresh device that isn't signed into a google account, and doesn't have cookies on it yet. It's all done via the ISP.
The technology is never precise and it's not always accurate. But it's accurate more often than not, and finding forged notes with a code that says "Philadelphia Region" is at least a starting point for investigators.
This sounds good and all, but I did this. I worked for a company where I knew piracy was going on. I said something about it, went to my management, and was ignored. The practice continued. So a few months later, I went to the BSA.
A couple days later I got a nice "thanks, but no thanks" letter explaining that the BSA takes piracy very seriously but they would not be looking into this particular report.
I have no idea their reasoning for this, but the company in question was a reseller for Microsoft and lots of other BSA members. They may have simply not wanted to rock the boat.
So it sounds nice and all, but as others have pointed out, the BSA isn't a law enforcement agency and doesn't have any special powers, and as my incident illustrates, they may not even choose to investigate in their limited way in the first place.
BSA seems like lots of bark, but not so much bite.
I'm not exactly pro hunting, but the idea that hunting isn't biologically encoded is demonstrably false.
Ever own a cat or a dog? Given the opportunity, they hunt things all the time. A cat that has never seen a mouse or bird will happily give chase to a bug or a laser pointer, and exhibit stalking behavior. I've never owned dogs, but I've owned enough cats over my life to say for certain that this is not learned behavior from observing other cats.
That said, we're clearly different than a cat or a dog. Clearly using guns to hunt things is not genetic. But that doesn't mean there's not something there. It may just be less obvious.
I've long been fascinated by the concept of persistence hunting. The basic concept is that it exploits some advantages that humans have over almost all land animals over long distances - any quadraped that can out-sprint us, can't keep up a run as long as we can. A fit runner can outrun a horse, a deer, or anything else over a long enough distance. If you can outwit it too, you can chase it until it drops dead from exhaustion.
It's theorized that we evolved to fill this niche. We have no claws, or sharp teeth to take down prey. We aren't fast. And the fossil record shows human tool use goes back about 200,000 years. But humans as a species go back 1.8 - 2.0 Million years. So how did we hunt before knives, spears, or bows? Persistence hunting is thought to be the answer to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
It's not conclusive. Only two isolated groups of primitive peoples are thought to still practice it (one in Central America, which has not been observed by outsiders, and one in Africa that has). But it makes sense, and the biology of humans as distance runners is true.
Is this the same as the drive a cat has chasing a mouse? I don't think so. But we are animals, and we do have certain things baked into our DNA.
That's immaterial.
Let's assume that they were in the wrong by operating the drones over the property of the shooters.
Is there some special South Carolina law that allows you to destroy someone else's property under those conditions?
Maybe they were within their rights to sue. Maybe the operators of the drone could have faced fines, or even jail time. But show me where the shooters derive the right to shoot at the drone, which is still the private property of another.
If my car got stuck in the mud on their property and I left it there while I arranged a tow, could they rightfully shoot at that too? Or is it just because they didn't like being spied on that makes it okay?
I agreed with you initially, but If you read through the posts attached to this story, there are quite a few reasonable arguments for doing so.
Basically they all boil down to this: If I'm a specialist now, and my company decided to eliminate my specialty, would I want to stay around, even if they agreed to retain me while I retrained on a new technology?
The answer might be yes if I wanted to learn a new skillset. If I'm a Linux admin who had never worked in a Windows environment and I thought this would be advantageous, that might be nice.
But what if my specialty doesn't translate well into the new technology ecosystem, or I'm a very senior specialist like a Systems Architect? I can see feeling devalued by the change and perhaps wanting to move on.
That said, I have the feeling that the person who submitted the question is not in that situation. By their question it seems like they just can't learn, or refuse to entirely out of ideology, which seems silly, given what we're talking about.
Yes, it is a problem. I agree, these riders are usually a problem.
But my point stands that this bill is different from NDAA. SOPA will have to stand or fall on its own, because it is a stand alone bill.
NDAA is not a good comparison to this legislation.
The NDAA is considered "must pass" legislation. While we can't know for sure what the President would have done had a bill landed on his desk separate from the NDAA, which included its controversial provisions, we do know that they cited the "must pass" nature of NDAA as the reason they reluctantly signed it into law.
This legislation, however is not attached to anything of the sort. It will pass or fail on its own merits. Congress can't use this as pressure, and the White House can't use it as an excuse.
I like your point, but I think you're missing out on something.
Radio isn't just used to tell stories. It's used to communicate. Nobody is telling stories in the cockpit of an aircraft, for instance. It's just communicating messages. Information back and forth.
There are lots of examples where this is true. And to extend your analogy with other species, there are plenty of other species that communicate on our own planet (even microbes!). It just so happens that the complexity of that communication seems to scale to a degree with the complexity of the organism. And it also so happens that we're the only species thus far that's developed the reasoning level and had the ability to develop tools to extend communication like radio.
Further, any other species that wishes to communicate over great distances on another world, regardless of whether or not they are culturally story tellers or not, will likely face similar problems to us, in terms of the physical limitations of passing messages across space within the universe (whether that space is a light year or a mile).
It stands to reason that similar solutions (radiation) will be sought. You could argue that they'd use different bands. Perhaps. We use the bands we use because they work best in our environment. For instance, most of our environment is opaque on the visual and IR bands, so that doesn't work. That's why we don't use those bands for much. Radio, on the other hand is easy to generate, can give you good range, is not very bad for you (like x-ray or gamma), and much of the world is transparent to it, so you don't need to worry about line of sight so much.
Now that said, we have no idea what they would transmit. Sound? Visuals? Digital representations of something? What are the odds that another intelligent civilization uses sound to communicate in the first place? I have no idea. If not sound, what? If a civilization is transmitting say, smell, or some abstraction of a sense we do not posses, how would we interpret this if we detected it? If we realized that it was intelligent, how would we decode it?
I agree. But I also agree that Israel's two-faced behavior contributes to some bigoted anti-semitic attitudes.
Israel isn't a free democratic state that has a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, and freedom from persecution. It is a "Jewish State". A democratic one that happens to be open to non-Jewish citizens, but they too often act as the "Jewish state" and alienate non-Jews. Particularly when they combat the Palestinians.
It's not all Israel's fault. The Palistinian and other Middle East state leaders have deamonized every action and made it a "those evil Jews" issue. But their insane, over-reactionary use of force, and the Zionist ideology doesn't help.
As an American, I've always been conflicted about Israel and our support for them. On the one hand, we ostensibly support them because they are a democracy. And true. They are (mostly). Arabs and Muslims are a well represented minority in government. They sit in the Knesset
But they are also this quasi-theocracy. This idea that one particular group of people (based on race or religion) should enjoy special protection, or special citizenship offends my ideals of equality. This would be entirely academic and probably something I could live with if Israel behaved themselves and treated dealt with the Palestinians in a way that seems humane, just, and in good faith. But while the Palestinians seem just as bad sometimes, I don't see them doing that.
The Arab Muslim population in Israel is a minority, but it's one that's growing faster than the Jewish majority. I am very curious to see how the Israeli government acts as this tipping point approaches. Will they stick to their democratic ideals? Or will keeping a "Jewish State" be more important?
But you're talking about the kind of behavior that would be considered reasonable for law enforcement before even obtaining a warrant. In fact, this behavior is sometimes required to build the evidence required to go to a judge for a warrant in the first place.
Stalking is illegal not because of simple privacy rules, or because the stalker might build a profile about you, but because it's a behavior that is frequently linked to violence.
Someone building a profile of your daily life may be undesirable. But can you make a case that it should protected against? I'm not certain that I have a right not to be skeeved out, nor that there is a case to be made for such a right to be enacted.
If you were to pass such rules, where would you place the limits on these restrictions? I've had daily commutes where I realized there was a car I'd see every day from my neighborhood to the same part of the city I worked in each day. I know what parking garage they parked in. I wasn't stalking them, we just took the same route on our commute five days a week. Is it different because I'm not a state actor? If that's the case, what about private cameras?
There are a lot of questions here, and I don't see a strong case for why there should be restrictions on what amounts to public information. But I'm open to hear ideas.
No. I don't. Can your neighbors see this? Passers by on the street? How is the camera different?
I'll grant you that it's a difference of degree because the camera can watch 24/7. But it's not a difference in kind. If I am somewhere where I have a reasonable expectation to be seen by other people, I think it's silly to complain about privacy and cameras.
But selective breeding for traits that are not inherited isn't Eugenics. It's not anything.
If you selectively breed for people who's middle initials is "K", you accomplish nothing. Because our names are not passed on genetically.
That economic status tends to prevail across generations is a happenstance of environment, not generics. Can the effect be the same as Eugenics? Sure. But it's not the same thing.
Morally equivalent? Perhaps. But not the same.
Let's take it a step further. If Eugenicists succeed, it pushes populations out of the breeding pool. Whatever race is deemed inferior will (if they're successful) disappear. No more black people, or jewish people, or whoever they deem undesirable.
But if you selectively breed out poor people, or people who like plaid, or anything else that's not passed on in genes, it doesn't keep other people from having those traits later. A person who has well off parents is likely to be well off themselves. But they're not guaranteed. The course their life takes can change that.
But a person born white, or a red head, or black or Persian will remain so his or her entire life. If you exterminate them, they're gone. That's the practical difference between this and Eugenics.
Again, I'm not supporting this. Just trying to explain that while there are similarities, it's not Eugenics.
The vulgar one has a point though. There are classes of software that are aimed at audiences that wouldn't want them if they had the skills to write them on their own.
Do you think that most children's games would exist if they had to be written by kids?
BASIC is this kind of problem. I suspect that nobody who ever wrote a BASIC interpreter had a practical use for it themselves. Maybe during the Apple II / TRS80 days, but certainly not more recently than that. In recent times, it's a tool for less experienced programmers to learn with and solve very simple problems, not a tool someone who could write software would employ to solve a practical problem.
Yeah, as others have alluded to, NewYorkCountryLawyer is one of several well-known Slashdot users. Like CleverNickname and some others of note.
Maybe not everyone on Slashdot knows who these folks are, but they are known by many if not most.
Thanks for the info. Very interesting. It was my understanding that a big motivating factor was loiter time.
The military loves to tout pilot endurance as the limiting factor for mission time thanks to mid-air refueling. It was my understanding that a big part of this push was to further that. Any insight there?
"Acknowledge".
Pardon my typos. That's what I get for not using preview.
Read the report before you dismiss it.
If you had taken the time to read it before being so paranoid and dismissive, you'd learn the report acknokeges many of your concerns, including the EOS ring ergonomics.
Instead, you just sound foolish.
Easy. With bottled air, you've got to cart around what you can breathe. You're limited by that, and it takes up space and weight.
The early F-16s didn't have OBOGS. When they got an engine upgrade (block 50, I think) they recieved OBOGS. From the company that builds the OBOGS, here's the advantages:
http://www.cobham.com/media/75388/SYSTEM%20F-16%20OBOGS%20ADV10556.pdf
The problem is that if something goes wrong, you have to shut the system down. In this case a sensor detected hot air entering the system, which is a sign of a fire, or a potential cause of one. So the system shuts down, and the pilot needs to go to his emergency O2 supply. But this guy struggled trying to activate it. Possibly an ergonomic problem that needs to be addressed.
Generally speaking though, OBOGS is a sound, logical way to go.
No. Read the report:
http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2011/F-22A_AK_16%20Nov%2010.pdf
This wasn't a case of extraordinary circumstances. This was calm, high altitude flight where a critical (but understood) subsystem failed.
The pilot then became distracted by the system failure possible because of oxygen deprivation, or because the emergency air control was in an ergonomically challenging location. While distracted, he became inverted (240 degree roll during descent) and didn't attempt to correct until 3 seconds prior to impact.
The ergonomic issue may be a contributing cause. but a pilot *must* be able to continue instrument scan while dealing with an emergency. Just because you're air doesn't work doesn't mean you can't still crash while dealing with that.
It's sad, but more or less understood what happened.
No, that is not what this means.
"Air bleed" is the method by which the OBOGS generates breathable air. It's called "bleed" because it "bleeds" off a small amount of air from the engine's compressor system. (This air can also be used for deicing flight surfaces, generating power, and other purposes).
An "air bleed failure" means that either no air is getting into the system, or a sensor failed and it thinks no air is getting into the system.
To summarize, this wasn't a failure where air was bleeding, this was a failure of the system that bleeds air from the engine for the pilot to breathe. That's important to understand.
The effect we're discussing is easily observable to anyone who's reasonably familiar with a kitchen.
Ever fry french fries in oil? This is typically what? 350F?
Baking a pizza will typically be around 450F.
Yet it's easy to reach into a 450 degree oven and remove the pizza. As long as you use a towel or a tool, your hand can be in the same environment that just cooked the pizza for a relatively long time..
But any fool knows that reaching into the oil with your bare hand *at all* will burn your skin in less than a second. Even though the oil is 100 degrees cooler than the oven.
It's just a dramatic, every-day example of the difference in heat transfer between mediums (in this case, oil vs air).
I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.
Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm
You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.
That said:
Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.
Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.
An interesting primer on the subject:
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/15/race-doesnt-exist-or-does-it/
I know podcasts can be a PITA because it's slower than reading, but it's worth a listen if you're at all interested in the subject.
YES. THIS.
The same person can work for multiple outlets.
Take Keith Olbermann. Regardless of what you may think of him, his career has had him all over the place. Should he enjoy the same protections on ESPN as he did on MSNBC prior to Countdown (which was more news and less opinion) should that enjoy the same protection as Countdown which is largely opinion commentary? What about his Twitter account?
Most journalists will shy away from outlets that are not well regarded for journalistic integrity because they don't want to sully their own names via association. But just because it's rare, that doesn't mean that if a journalist DOES want to go work somewhere else that they should enjoy the same protections in both capacities.
Probably not for something like HTML, no. But for a new language, I'll pick up a book. Books will often be better constructed than online tutorials. YMMV of course.
I've always liked The Head First series in particular for some things. Especially for exposing someone who is new to a language or concept. The series is very novel and always reminded me of the "hers's how to do something fun" approach that the BASIC programming books I cut my teeth on had.
Is it any good for an experienced Java Programmer who wants to pick up C# or Objective C quickly? No. But they absolutely have their place.
If you're a privately held company, that's fine.
But if you're traded, you need to show growth or some forecast that stock value will go up or you become a less attractive property for investors. Then your stock price goes down.
The end result is that corporations act myopicly in pursuit of high stock prices for each quarter. Long term strategy falls by the wayside.
I'm not saying I agree with the system, in fact I think it's fairly broken. But growth *does* matter the way the system is currently set up for publicly held companies.