You can look back at it, in your golden years and tell your grandchildren "I played on that server" and they can look back at you blankly and ask each other if it's time to check grandpa's meds again.
Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.
Not when the ground control station can be gotten at much more easily - or you just impound the vehicles on the ground... and the one in service is going to run out of fuel eventually.
There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles. They're original purpose was for the U.S. Navy to defend itself from incoming Russian airplanes at ~200 miles range.
You're talking about Talos? Talos wasn't a cruise missile - it was an anti-aircraft missile. Cruise missiles fly aerodynamically (using wings), while Talos flew a semi ballistic trajectory using a ramjet rather than more usual rocket engines. Not to mention that cruise missiles, by definition are designed to attack surface targets... The closest thing ever deployed in an anti-air role was the USAF's BOMARC.
There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto).
Well, no. Tomahawk had no ASW role, nuclear tipped or otherwise - you've got it confused with (the non nuclear) Harpoon, which was briefly but seriously considered for attacking surfaced cruise and ballistic missile submarines.* (The Soviets had several classes of both that required the submarine to surface to launch.) Not that nuclear tipped Tomahawks have any sensors for attacking ships or planes anyhow, all they have is an inertial guidance system and TERCOM (terrain matching radar). There's a reason why the nuclear tipped variant was called the TLAM-N... that stood for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile.- Nuclear.
* That's why Harpoon has that climb-and-dive terminal attack trajectory, as a leftover from that role... because submarines are much bigger targets from above than the side. Turned out that was also a useful feature for attacking smaller patrol craft (Harpoon's other original target) and it confused the anti-missile systems of the day, so it was retained even after the ASW role was dropped.
If you have an unshielded oscillator in your electronic device, it's emitting EMF waves. Probably not much, but it's still there.
When I was in the Navy way back in the 80's as a demonstration of why TEMPEST/EMCON was important to security - the auditors had one of us bring in a portable TV from home. They sat in their van, outside the building, two stories down, and sixty odd feet from the building wall... we sat in the office and watched TV, periodically changing the channel and logging the time we did so. After an hour they came back and had an exact list of the channels watched, and when. They even caught when we rapidly flipped from one channel to another and back or to a third channel in an attempt to confuse them.
Later, I went to my other office (down in the basement), and after an hour of observation, they were able to determine whether I was viewing a picture or reading text on my computer monitor.
Have you ever stopped to think about the amount of mud in a water reservoir after the wind and rain have whipped it up a bit? Doesn't get in your drinking water, does it?
An almost miniscule portion of said mud does so - because the designers of such reservoirs aren't stupid and place the intakes well away from the shores/edges and inflows, where 99.9999% of such debris is. Not to mention you vastly overestimate the amount of mud and debris "whipped up" in the first place.
I am afraid that my opinion of the IQ of the average/. reader just dropped an infinitesimal amount.
My estimation of you dropped by quite a bit more than an infinitesimal amount - because you made a stupid and groundless assumption and the proceeded to treat said assumption as if it were a fact.
- The obstruction of a perfectly lawful action - taking a photograph in a public place.
As a guy who enjoys shooting and looking at street photography, IMO the last one is the most severe offense. A few hundred bucks and a scare is nothing in comparison to the potential erosion to artistic and journalistic freedom if this behaviour is accepted.
There's a difference between street photography and deliberate harassment of an individual. You're not standing at the top of a slippery slope, you're standing between an apple cart and an Orange Julius.
"At the moment, I am self-taught and can easily keep up in a conversation of computer science majors."
Which of course is not the same thing as knowing what computer science majors do. Especially if they're actual computer science majors (as opposed to Information Technology majors with a featherbedded title), there's a lot more to computer science than slinging code and talking a good game.
That assumes the individual gets overtime or comp time or some other benefit for working more than 40hrs/week. That's not universal at all.
For hourly workers, in the United States, overtime pays 1.5*(regular wage) by law.
No shit Sherlock. What obvious thing are you going to tell us next? Water is wet? Fire burns?
If that doesn't apply to you, you're unemployed, an independent contractor, an exempt salaried employee, working under the table, or a victim of the crime of wage theft.
No shit Sherlock. Which is why I said such compensation is hardly universal. Not everyone is an hourly worker.
This is actually the strongest argument for completely socialized medicine: If everybody gets health care, always, from the same source, then it's more expensive (in hourly positions) to hire 1 person to work 60 hours per week than it is to hire 2 people to work 30 hours per week.
That assumes the individual gets overtime or comp time or some other benefit for working more than 40hrs/week. That's not universal at all.
Not to mention the resentment of being a less than full time worker and thus getting less than full time pay and benefits.
It wasn't really all the cold war, you know. Sure, the Toynbee Tile "footballs in space" thing had something to do with it. But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while.
And guess why Kennedy was orating and finding a national mission,? (Hint: It's spelled "COLD WAR".) Rather than getting all misty eyed about his speech, pick up some decent space history and study the reasons why Kennedy chose the moon landing as a goal. (Hint: It's spelled "UPSTAGE THE RUSSIANS".)
The reason is that once private space is properly funded, then it will go to the moon around 2020.
Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some please. Just don't cross any border checkpoints with it, because something that powerfully hallucinogenic is almost certainly illegal.
Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious.
Not sure I see the relevance, seeing as: Recent failures are a blip in a long run of reliability
What long run of reliability? The Russian boosters are no worse or no better than anyone else's. They've suffered a steady string of failures and problems across they years, and *then* comes the recent 'blip'. (Not so recent really, if you count the run of Soyuz problems running back to the turn of the century.)
They couldn't even do it when they had some of the best schools in the world (which regularly minted Nobel laureates), during the Soviet times, with essentially unlimited budget and manpower.
Except - they didn't have either. They had a limited budget, limited manpower, and they started years late because they didn't actually believe the US meant it. (If Kennedy hadn't visited Dallas, and Apollo subsequently pushed as his memorial - there's a non trivial change it would have vanished like so many other brave plans.) Then, on top of that, the chief designer and political string-puller of the project died after minor surgery...
And despite that they still came quite close to pulling it off.
I like how the summary goes on about how ambitious it is for Russia to get to the moon in almost two decades. It took just a little over 8 years for the US to go from basically nada (hadn't even gotten into orbit yet) to landing on the moon.
That's the popular version - and it's also very, very, wrong.
F1 engine development started in 1856 for example. At the time of Kennedy's speech, both the Apollo CSM and what would eventually become the Saturn V were already being developed as well. This is why he chose the Lunar Landing as a goal in the first place - it was a reachable scientific and engineering goal that was already quietly underway.
If anything, getting there by 2030 seems a rather conservative goal, even taking into account their recent issues.
In 1995, their goal was the Moon by 2000, and Mars by 2015. In 2000, their goal was the Moon by 2010 and Mars by 2020. In 2010 their goal was the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030.... The Russians have a long history of bold powerpoint plans, and basically have never accomplished any of them.
I tried to by Britannica CD in 90s. They were charging almost as much as paper edition.
Ah, the common consumer fallacy - it's "just" a CD, so it should be orders of magnitude cheaper... Notwithstanding the fact that printing and distribution of the hardcopy was only a very small fraction of the total cost.
They could have sewn up the encyclopedia market but their high price was unjustifiable in the light of substantially cheaper offerings such as Encarta. Sure, Encarta is not as good as Britannica but it's good enough for most kids. This is the key point: good enough is the enemy of perfect.
Well, if by "good enough" you mean "just barely useable at all", then sure. Once again [the generic you] heaps praise upon the subcompact for being cheap, while handwaving away the fact that it won't do what the pickup truck you actually need will do.
This is why Sears (a name that once stood for quality) is on the ropes, and Sam Walton died a very rich man. (Ray Kroc too...) Nobody goes broke who bets on the willingness of the American public to place more importance on price than on value.
the internet of the late 20th century and the first few years of the last decade was you go find the information you want. Google flourished because they were able to organize it better to make life easier for you.
No, before Adwords Google was a modest sized company with decent growth - no Yahoo! or MSN, but still a rather decent third place. Then, in 2000, came Adwords. And then Google 'flourished', at least in the sense of cash flow... which blinded everyone (even Google itself) to reality - they were still a distant third in terms of eyes on their own pages.
Then along came Facebook, and beat Google and everyone else at their own game. Not only garnering more eyeballs, but also getting more time on the page per eyeballs, *and* gathering more data allowing for more accurate (and more profitable) advertising.
Facebook, twitter and the rest of social is the new internet. You "like" or follow brands and then read the stream of their updates/news feed. sort of like a custom RSS feed. the point is that you no longer find the information, you are fed a stream of data. just like TV of the 20th century where you sit in front of a box and consume the content.
That, fed by geek hubris, is a popular mythperception. It makes the geeks feel better about themselves, and gives the pundits something to holler about to endear themselves to the technorati... but it's bullshit. If you actually watch things like Yahoo Buzz and Google Trends you see the daily ebb and flow of people seeking information. Yeah, the shallow readers will only see the shallow people searching out Hollywood buzz, but discerning readers following them over time will note the searches for more serious information as well.
What you, and other shallow readers miss is that there are two kinds of information people use the web to seek. The first is their 'daily dose'. News on their favorite sports teams, their favorite bloggers latest posting, sales at their favorite stores, following the latest trends etc... etc... That's why (among other things) RSS feeds were invented. One stop for everything. (Hold on, more on that in a minute.) Millions of people search daily for these, and thus they dominate search trends - most of the time. The second is "situational searches", what do if your 1996 Taurus breaks down?, what do these purple spots on your forearm mean?, how to cut a rabbet without a tablesaw?.... Literately an infinity of different detailed searches, with millions of people each searching for millions of different things. These, they don't show up in 'top results', misleading those who mistakenly take top search results for the whole of the search universe. Though the hints have always been there for those with eyes to see... Like the guy who sued google over the ranking of his flower shop. Or JC Penney's being slapped by Google for their misleading methods of getting to the top of their categories.
The other thing missed by the shallow and short of memory is that the portal, one stop for everything, has been the Holy Grail of the commercial internet since practically Day One. Even Google has tried their hand at this early on, first by making their site(s) easy to use by introducing a single username/password for all their services. Later, they introduced Google Homepage (since rebranded as iGoogle) to the great joy of the geek community. ("Now we can use Google instead of Yahoo! or MSN!" Oh, the irony - since much of the same community derided portals.) Alongside that came their RSS reader, Google Sites, Google Business, Picasa, etc... etc... Ever more services and sites trying to keep eyeballs on Google's ads and trying to gain even more personal information to more accurately target those ads.
Maybe the particular intersection is one where the length of the yellow light has been shortened?
The shortened yellow is designed to catch those who skirt the law by continuing into the intersection even when the light is already yellow. I.E. If you don't treat the yellow as just an extension of the green, you'll never get a ticket.
People have been shaving the yellow so long, it's been forgotten that it mean "the light is about to go red, STOP", not "the other traffic still has a red, go ahead anyhow".
Just waiting for a shareholder initiative to kill the 20% developer personal research time off. To soon be followed by demands of a new CEO that will outsource and reduce staff to improve sagging profits.
Be careful when talking about Google shareholders - because that's only (IIRC) about 200 odd people. All those shared being tossed around on the NYSE are class 'B' shares - with no voting rights, no right to dividends or profit distribution, no nothing but a few bits on a computer somewhere.
You fund 1,000 projects, in the hope that 1 of them will return more then the other 999 consume. What Google is doing, is what most US companies are failing to do to get ahead of the rest of the world.
Google can afford to do that because of it's "obscene" profit margins. If Ford (to pick an example of "another" US company) charged $100,000 for a compact - it would have comparable profit margins and the ability to throw money around in the same manner as Google is doing. But of course, if Ford charged $100,000 for a compact - they'd be out of business in a heartbeat. If they even tried, the shouting and whining about price gouging and "obscene" profits would drown out a 100meg nuclear weapon going off.
Just as Ma Bell's near monopoly funded Bell Labs, Google's is funding their throwing money around like a drunken sailor.
I think discussion sections work great in the small and medium scale special interest category. A number of smaller blogs I frequent, the comment section/side forum becomes a good area for discussion...
When you have a small group of generally like minded people with a certain amount of pre-existing knowledge in the topic..
Sometimes you get good discussion... other times you get groupthink and "preaching to the choir". On the really bad ones, you get the same set of rote responses to each posting on a given topic.
When you get the diverse public with dissimilar views and often a very surface understanding of the topic..
You need a good moderation system. You also need a moderately tolerant group of regulars who can actually read, comprehend, and write clearly without rote responses and groupthink.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY.
Not when the ground control station can be gotten at much more easily - or you just impound the vehicles on the ground... and the one in service is going to run out of fuel eventually.
You're talking about Talos? Talos wasn't a cruise missile - it was an anti-aircraft missile. Cruise missiles fly aerodynamically (using wings), while Talos flew a semi ballistic trajectory using a ramjet rather than more usual rocket engines. Not to mention that cruise missiles, by definition are designed to attack surface targets... The closest thing ever deployed in an anti-air role was the USAF's BOMARC.
Well, no. Tomahawk had no ASW role, nuclear tipped or otherwise - you've got it confused with (the non nuclear) Harpoon, which was briefly but seriously considered for attacking surfaced cruise and ballistic missile submarines.* (The Soviets had several classes of both that required the submarine to surface to launch.) Not that nuclear tipped Tomahawks have any sensors for attacking ships or planes anyhow, all they have is an inertial guidance system and TERCOM (terrain matching radar). There's a reason why the nuclear tipped variant was called the TLAM-N... that stood for T omahawk L and A ttack M issile.- N uclear.
* That's why Harpoon has that climb-and-dive terminal attack trajectory, as a leftover from that role... because submarines are much bigger targets from above than the side. Turned out that was also a useful feature for attacking smaller patrol craft (Harpoon's other original target) and it confused the anti-missile systems of the day, so it was retained even after the ASW role was dropped.
If you have an unshielded oscillator in your electronic device, it's emitting EMF waves. Probably not much, but it's still there.
When I was in the Navy way back in the 80's as a demonstration of why TEMPEST/EMCON was important to security - the auditors had one of us bring in a portable TV from home. They sat in their van, outside the building, two stories down, and sixty odd feet from the building wall... we sat in the office and watched TV, periodically changing the channel and logging the time we did so. After an hour they came back and had an exact list of the channels watched, and when. They even caught when we rapidly flipped from one channel to another and back or to a third channel in an attempt to confuse them.
Later, I went to my other office (down in the basement), and after an hour of observation, they were able to determine whether I was viewing a picture or reading text on my computer monitor.
An almost miniscule portion of said mud does so - because the designers of such reservoirs aren't stupid and place the intakes well away from the shores/edges and inflows, where 99.9999% of such debris is. Not to mention you vastly overestimate the amount of mud and debris "whipped up" in the first place.
My estimation of you dropped by quite a bit more than an infinitesimal amount - because you made a stupid and groundless assumption and the proceeded to treat said assumption as if it were a fact.
There's a difference between street photography and deliberate harassment of an individual. You're not standing at the top of a slippery slope, you're standing between an apple cart and an Orange Julius.
"At the moment, I am self-taught and can easily keep up in a conversation of computer science majors."
Which of course is not the same thing as knowing what computer science majors do. Especially if they're actual computer science majors (as opposed to Information Technology majors with a featherbedded title), there's a lot more to computer science than slinging code and talking a good game.
Trivially.
Or are you serious? You're actually so ignorant that you don't know that you can sign away your rights under the law?
No shit Sherlock. What obvious thing are you going to tell us next? Water is wet? Fire burns?
No shit Sherlock. Which is why I said such compensation is hardly universal. Not everyone is an hourly worker.
That assumes the individual gets overtime or comp time or some other benefit for working more than 40hrs/week. That's not universal at all.
Not to mention the resentment of being a less than full time worker and thus getting less than full time pay and benefits.
"We" can't forget something that's a complete fabrication of your imagination.
And guess why Kennedy was orating and finding a national mission,? (Hint: It's spelled "COLD WAR".) Rather than getting all misty eyed about his speech, pick up some decent space history and study the reasons why Kennedy chose the moon landing as a goal. (Hint: It's spelled "UPSTAGE THE RUSSIANS".)
Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some please. Just don't cross any border checkpoints with it, because something that powerfully hallucinogenic is almost certainly illegal.
Indeed. At the rate SpaceX is going, even the glacial Chinese program is likely to lap them.
What long run of reliability? The Russian boosters are no worse or no better than anyone else's. They've suffered a steady string of failures and problems across they years, and *then* comes the recent 'blip'. (Not so recent really, if you count the run of Soyuz problems running back to the turn of the century.)
Except - they didn't have either. They had a limited budget, limited manpower, and they started years late because they didn't actually believe the US meant it. (If Kennedy hadn't visited Dallas, and Apollo subsequently pushed as his memorial - there's a non trivial change it would have vanished like so many other brave plans.) Then, on top of that, the chief designer and political string-puller of the project died after minor surgery...
And despite that they still came quite close to pulling it off.
That's the popular version - and it's also very, very, wrong.
F1 engine development started in 1856 for example. At the time of Kennedy's speech, both the Apollo CSM and what would eventually become the Saturn V were already being developed as well. This is why he chose the Lunar Landing as a goal in the first place - it was a reachable scientific and engineering goal that was already quietly underway.
In 1995, their goal was the Moon by 2000, and Mars by 2015. In 2000, their goal was the Moon by 2010 and Mars by 2020. In 2010 their goal was the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030.... The Russians have a long history of bold powerpoint plans, and basically have never accomplished any of them.
So? Don't take any illegal substances through Williamson County then - problem solved.
Ah, the common consumer fallacy - it's "just" a CD, so it should be orders of magnitude cheaper... Notwithstanding the fact that printing and distribution of the hardcopy was only a very small fraction of the total cost.
Well, if by "good enough" you mean "just barely useable at all", then sure. Once again [the generic you] heaps praise upon the subcompact for being cheap, while handwaving away the fact that it won't do what the pickup truck you actually need will do.
This is why Sears (a name that once stood for quality) is on the ropes, and Sam Walton died a very rich man. (Ray Kroc too...) Nobody goes broke who bets on the willingness of the American public to place more importance on price than on value.
No, before Adwords Google was a modest sized company with decent growth - no Yahoo! or MSN, but still a rather decent third place. Then, in 2000, came Adwords. And then Google 'flourished', at least in the sense of cash flow... which blinded everyone (even Google itself) to reality - they were still a distant third in terms of eyes on their own pages.
Then along came Facebook, and beat Google and everyone else at their own game. Not only garnering more eyeballs, but also getting more time on the page per eyeballs, *and* gathering more data allowing for more accurate (and more profitable) advertising.
That, fed by geek hubris, is a popular mythperception. It makes the geeks feel better about themselves, and gives the pundits something to holler about to endear themselves to the technorati... but it's bullshit. If you actually watch things like Yahoo Buzz and Google Trends you see the daily ebb and flow of people seeking information. Yeah, the shallow readers will only see the shallow people searching out Hollywood buzz, but discerning readers following them over time will note the searches for more serious information as well.
What you, and other shallow readers miss is that there are two kinds of information people use the web to seek. The first is their 'daily dose'. News on their favorite sports teams, their favorite bloggers latest posting, sales at their favorite stores, following the latest trends etc... etc... That's why (among other things) RSS feeds were invented. One stop for everything. (Hold on, more on that in a minute.) Millions of people search daily for these, and thus they dominate search trends - most of the time. The second is "situational searches", what do if your 1996 Taurus breaks down?, what do these purple spots on your forearm mean?, how to cut a rabbet without a tablesaw?.... Literately an infinity of different detailed searches, with millions of people each searching for millions of different things. These, they don't show up in 'top results', misleading those who mistakenly take top search results for the whole of the search universe. Though the hints have always been there for those with eyes to see... Like the guy who sued google over the ranking of his flower shop. Or JC Penney's being slapped by Google for their misleading methods of getting to the top of their categories.
The other thing missed by the shallow and short of memory is that the portal, one stop for everything, has been the Holy Grail of the commercial internet since practically Day One. Even Google has tried their hand at this early on, first by making their site(s) easy to use by introducing a single username/password for all their services. Later, they introduced Google Homepage (since rebranded as iGoogle) to the great joy of the geek community. ("Now we can use Google instead of Yahoo! or MSN!" Oh, the irony - since much of the same community derided portals.) Alongside that came their RSS reader, Google Sites, Google Business, Picasa, etc... etc... Ever more services and sites trying to keep eyeballs on Google's ads and trying to gain even more personal information to more accurately target those ads.
The shortened yellow is designed to catch those who skirt the law by continuing into the intersection even when the light is already yellow. I.E. If you don't treat the yellow as just an extension of the green, you'll never get a ticket.
People have been shaving the yellow so long, it's been forgotten that it mean "the light is about to go red, STOP", not "the other traffic still has a red, go ahead anyhow".
I knew it was something like that - the insiders essentially have control.
Be careful when talking about Google shareholders - because that's only (IIRC) about 200 odd people. All those shared being tossed around on the NYSE are class 'B' shares - with no voting rights, no right to dividends or profit distribution, no nothing but a few bits on a computer somewhere.
Google can afford to do that because of it's "obscene" profit margins. If Ford (to pick an example of "another" US company) charged $100,000 for a compact - it would have comparable profit margins and the ability to throw money around in the same manner as Google is doing. But of course, if Ford charged $100,000 for a compact - they'd be out of business in a heartbeat. If they even tried, the shouting and whining about price gouging and "obscene" profits would drown out a 100meg nuclear weapon going off.
Just as Ma Bell's near monopoly funded Bell Labs, Google's is funding their throwing money around like a drunken sailor.
Sometimes you get good discussion... other times you get groupthink and "preaching to the choir". On the really bad ones, you get the same set of rote responses to each posting on a given topic.
You need a good moderation system. You also need a moderately tolerant group of regulars who can actually read, comprehend, and write clearly without rote responses and groupthink.