The OP is correct, the top military generally went through pretty much the same training as the enlisted ranks. When they were junior officers it's wasn't just the same training - it was the same training right beside the enlisted ranks. And it's the type of training described in the article.
Most civilians don't realize that when a miltary member says 'training' he means a lot more than just sitting in a lecture. It also includes simulators, drills, paper exercises, field exercises, a wide variety of hand on training... And for the officers, that means learning and going through many of the same operations (though not in as great a detail in the technical fields) and learning how to lead and manage the the men and women thus trained.
ADM Greenert, the current CNO, once upon a time he was a butterbar on a fire team, or in the get-wet, or sweating out a crash restart of the reactor in AMR2 or Maneuvering right beside the rag hats. Ditto with the Army equivalents for the current Chief of Staff of the United States Army. The current Commandant was an aviator, so like the Chair Force, his experience didn't exactly parallel the enlisted ranks. (The last Commandant however started out leading a rifle platoon.)
Yeah... Pretty much every one I know who drives a recent American car routinely gets 100k+ miles. Hell, warranties running 150k+ miles aren't exactly uncommon anymore.
Pull your head out of your ass and leave the 1960's and join us here in the 21st century.
I still don't see what the problem is. Spotify (et al) have done their math and decided that's what they will pay. If an author doesn't like it, nobody is forcing him to sell his songs to Spotify.
Precisely this. I'm getting fed up with the Slashdot attitude that the people who front all the cash, take all the risk, pay all the operating costs, etc.... etc... year after year are somehow screwing over the 'little guy' who shows up for a days work and expects to get the lion's share of the income ten years later. And it's interesting how all the labels which survive and prosper follow more-or-less the same arc - so, is everybody that greedy or is the simple economics of the music industry? Given that even small indie labels end up on that arc, I'm betting that the needle tends more towards the right hand side of that scale than most Slashdotter's (who are notoriously bad at grasping business matters) think.
There's no reason to doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He admitted as much. It's on him to provide justification for the act
WRONG. It's the prosecution's job to prove the act could not be justified - that's the heart of "innocent until proven guilty". It's is not the defendants task to prove himself innocent.
In other words, the non Fed attendees can't be trusted to act like adults, so the con is warning the Feds not to attend. That really engenders trust in the hacker community. Good move!
But privacy advocates are not winning. They are losing.
That's because of two, connected things. The first is that most privacy advocates sound and act like raving paranoid nutjobs (and for the most part they are). The second is that this has lead them to scream "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" so many times that nobody listens to them anymore.
The there is a third thing, one the nutjobs don't grasp and don't seem to even realize the existence of: most people don't care. Nor have have the nutjobs been able to frame a cogent, coherent case for people to care.
Not necessarily true. You will still have top students and you will still have bottom students. You will get the same type of students at the top now that you did before.
It's not the type of student that's under discussion - it's the type and content of their education, which is something different entirely.
The type of people that aren't affected by your "feel good science projects".
An assumption based on a) bias about 'rop students', and b) the assumption that all top students are the same, and c) all top students are budding scientists.
Even if most of the people that are interested in it now aren't capable of becoming experts in it for one reason or another they still gain valuable knowledge and at the very least respect for the science.
Um, no. The curriculum is content lite, because it's not aimed at education. It's Mythbusters, which gives people the misapprehension they know about science and leads to no respect as it's demonstrated not as a process to respect but as something 'fun'.
Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
What would be the point? It isn't a word processor or some other standalone PC application. It's a tightly bound hardware controller - half of the "code" isn't in bits and bytes, it's out in the actuators and sensors. (Not that a tenth of the OSS community would even understand the problem domain.)
The first era of the PC ended with Byte. This was when people actually put computers together, actually understood what the computer was doing, and wasn't obsessed with memory and clock speed unless it actually improved performance.
By that definition, there never was an era of the PC because virtually nobody who wasn't a professional understood what the computer was actually doing once CPU's got more complex than the 4004. The same goes for memory and clock speed, whether hobbyists or early adopters, nobody has ever had enough of either.
As is usually the case with such claims, you're looking through rose colored glasses into the golden fields of fantasy - because the golden era you describe never existed.
All of these garbage political/social projects to supposedly increase American kids' achievement in science are just that: feel good garbage. Lowering standards only goes so far until real work and real achievement are required.
Yep. I've said it before and I'll say it again - infotainment and edutainment and meaningless feel good "science" projects are doing a vast disservice to a whole generation of students. They don't actually learn anything and they don't learn how to learn. When the history of current education is written a century hence, STEM will be seen as a total failure.
The biggest problem is that there are a lot of people whose job it is to take a piece of paper from one bin and put it in another. All of those jobs would be put at risk were you to actually do something substantive about this problem. They're far more concerned with their jobs than actually getting anything done.
No, the problem is you don't understand the problem domain and thus just repeat platitudes on the assumption that doing so makes you look wise. This system has been in place for years, all the old paper movers are long gone.
Of course what really needs to be done is to document the actual process and system requirements, and then just put up a modern payroll processing system.
Everything *is* well documented - the problem is, the military pay system is way, way more complex than any civilian system. None of my old pay statements are handy (buried somewhere out in the garage if I still have them), but here's what went into my paycheck in the last year or so of my enlistment;
Base Pay: E-5 with over eight years of service.
Submarine pay. (But only so long as I was eligible for submarine duty - I was on shore duty, and if I'd gone under nine months with transferring to a sea command I'd no longer be eligible for that pay. This pay also varied with the number of years I'd been submarine eligible.)
COMRATS. Rather than issuing me a mess card to eat in the chow hall, I got cash instead.
BAQ - since I didn't live in the barracks, I got a cash allowance to live off base.
_____ I don't remember the name, but it was a differential to BAQ to account for the cost of living here. Someone in San Diego got more, someone in bumfuck Nebraska got less.
Then there were all the deductions (not so different from civilian practice, so no need for details.)
Then there were all the annual payouts, like my re-enlistment bonus and my uniform maintenance allowance.
Had I gone back to sea, I'd have gotten sea pay - which amount depends on the total number of months served at a sea command during my career to date, so those months have to be tracked and the clock started and stopped as appropriate. (The services have a whole host of incentive, qualification, and duty status pay and allowances - jump, hazardous duty, onerous duty, etc... etc...)
Then there's annual leave (which isn't so different from the civilian world.)
On top of that, the system has to manage travel pay, the civilian pay system, retirees...
It's a complex system, and nowhere as simple as just 'parsing a text file'.
No, ignorant jackasses like yourself have distorted things - because you not only have no fecking clue what you're talking about, you've swallowed the bullshit, lies, and propaganda of equally ignorant people wholesale.
"It underscores the general sentiment of the copyright monopoly not protecting the creator of artwork, but protecting the big distribution monopolies, no matter who actually created the art."
I'm not sure that outside of small bubble of people who don't believe in copyright at all (let alone understand the concept that others have rights in the first place), that such sentiment is general.
No, the actual point is that subtitles are derivative works - which require permission from the holders of the copyright to create. Which is an example of copyright getting it exactly right. You aren't allowed to muck with someone else's work without their permission. That's the whole point of copyright,
I can enjoy art without making a financial contribution to the artist. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp in the age of RIAA and copyright maximalists, but it was only recently that art became a work for hire, and throughout most of human history art was something you did to pass the time once the business of staying alive was completed.
Maybe that's true in your halcyon 'noble savage' scenario. In reality, art has largely been for hire since the dawn of civilization. Artists have to eat too.
the flying service's historically kneejerk resistance to anything too closely aligned with sweeping technological change
Wait, what? What planet does he live on? Historically the USAF has been quite the opposite - chasing sweeping technological change whether it made sense or the technology was truly ready for the prime time. You want kneejerk resistance, you want the Navy, especially my fellow bubbleheads in the submarine service.
This isn't about technology, it's about social change - and that has always been been a tug-of-war in the USAF between the fighter and bomber communities.
The issue of age discrimination in the tech sector comes up a lot on Slashdot. Maybe it's just a Silicon Valley thing?
It's partly because there is a certain level of age discrimination. It's partly because the average Slashdotter doesn't seem to be comfortable unless he's found a reason to feel persecuted.
Why is this statement modded down? It's a perfectly legitimate assessment of the flow of money and labor. If people were allowed to trade their own labor or goods without having to invoke the mandatory use of Federal Reserve notes/bits it would be much more difficult for the USA's Federal Government to put a toll on that transaction.
*Sigh*. I've said it before, but it doesn't appear to be penetrating the tinfoil.
The US goverment doesn't care whether you conduct your transactions in dollar, Bitcoins, or jars of hamster poop. They simply don't. So long as you can calculate a dollar equivalent and pay the appropriate tax in dollars - you're golden.
Indeed Bitcoin is a competing currency that allows people to bargain directly with one another which the Federal Government would interpret as competition
People can already bargain directly with each other - using plain old US dollars. (Cash if you want to reduce traceability.) Or they can use the "I'll do this for you if you do this more me" barter route, which is perfectly legal. There's also any number of alternate currencies in circulation in the US - completely unmolested by the government.
The US government is not trying to eliminate the bitcoin except in the ignorant minds of those who don't feel validated unless they feel persecuted.
I read the summary three times, but I'm still not sure how it relates to reality.
Sadly, neither the summary or the article makes the situation clear.
How is that a consequence? Haven't books always been priced based on demand and whim? They don't think the price of a $200 textbook is primarily in the print materials, do they?
No, in print books have pretty much never been priced on demand or whim. For an individual book, the price remains the same for all customers at a brick and mortar store. Amazon prices them by perceived value to an individual customer - and even then, they'll vary significantly from day-to-day.
I like non fiction submarine books (for example), Amazon has figured this out... and I haven't seen a sale price on one for years.. (But my wife does on her account if she remembers to check "this is a gift".) I ordered the DVD of A Certain Scientific Railgun last week, and today the manga was a higher price than it was two weeks ago. The UNIX book (just as a generic example) that you bought for for $29.99 last week? Amazon might offer it to me for $20.00 and eligible for free shipping because I've never bought a UNIX book. Etc... etc...
It has nothing to do with supply and demand, and everything to do with maximizing Amazon's profit margin at the expense of the consumer.
Breaking news - you're a clueless git who no more understands the situation than my keyboard does. But that doesn't stop you from typing platitudes, or equally clueless moderators from modding you (or many others of similar ilk) in this discussion) up.
Amazon isn't pricing books based on supply and demand - they're pricing them based on perceived value to the individual customer. I like non fiction submarine books (for example), Amazon figures this out... and I'll never see a sale price on a submarine book again. I ordered the DVD of A Certain Scientific Railgun last week, and today the manga was a higher price than it was two weeks ago. Etc... etc...
The term "cartwheel" has different meanings to different people
If by that you mean that uneducated or ignorant people it has different meanings, I'll agree with you. But to educated people, it means just one thing.
Judging by the debris, it looks like it would have been a steep descent with flare at the end -- which results in a faster landing and is preferred at high-volume airports, over a shallower approach, with less flare.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP is correct, the top military generally went through pretty much the same training as the enlisted ranks. When they were junior officers it's wasn't just the same training - it was the same training right beside the enlisted ranks. And it's the type of training described in the article.
Most civilians don't realize that when a miltary member says 'training' he means a lot more than just sitting in a lecture. It also includes simulators, drills, paper exercises, field exercises, a wide variety of hand on training... And for the officers, that means learning and going through many of the same operations (though not in as great a detail in the technical fields) and learning how to lead and manage the the men and women thus trained.
ADM Greenert, the current CNO, once upon a time he was a butterbar on a fire team, or in the get-wet, or sweating out a crash restart of the reactor in AMR2 or Maneuvering right beside the rag hats. Ditto with the Army equivalents for the current Chief of Staff of the United States Army. The current Commandant was an aviator, so like the Chair Force, his experience didn't exactly parallel the enlisted ranks. (The last Commandant however started out leading a rifle platoon.)
Yeah... Pretty much every one I know who drives a recent American car routinely gets 100k+ miles. Hell, warranties running 150k+ miles aren't exactly uncommon anymore.
Pull your head out of your ass and leave the 1960's and join us here in the 21st century.
Which is why I didn't buy GOOG.
Precisely this. I'm getting fed up with the Slashdot attitude that the people who front all the cash, take all the risk, pay all the operating costs, etc.... etc... year after year are somehow screwing over the 'little guy' who shows up for a days work and expects to get the lion's share of the income ten years later. And it's interesting how all the labels which survive and prosper follow more-or-less the same arc - so, is everybody that greedy or is the simple economics of the music industry? Given that even small indie labels end up on that arc, I'm betting that the needle tends more towards the right hand side of that scale than most Slashdotter's (who are notoriously bad at grasping business matters) think.
I was about to say the same thing - what exactly is the point of having 82 different (and seemingly totally randomly) named points in my backyard?
There, fixed that for you.
WRONG. It's the prosecution's job to prove the act could not be justified - that's the heart of "innocent until proven guilty". It's is not the defendants task to prove himself innocent.
In other words, the non Fed attendees can't be trusted to act like adults, so the con is warning the Feds not to attend. That really engenders trust in the hacker community. Good move!
That's because of two, connected things. The first is that most privacy advocates sound and act like raving paranoid nutjobs (and for the most part they are). The second is that this has lead them to scream "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" so many times that nobody listens to them anymore.
The there is a third thing, one the nutjobs don't grasp and don't seem to even realize the existence of: most people don't care. Nor have have the nutjobs been able to frame a cogent, coherent case for people to care.
It's not the type of student that's under discussion - it's the type and content of their education, which is something different entirely.
An assumption based on a) bias about 'rop students', and b) the assumption that all top students are the same, and c) all top students are budding scientists.
Um, no. The curriculum is content lite, because it's not aimed at education. It's Mythbusters, which gives people the misapprehension they know about science and leads to no respect as it's demonstrated not as a process to respect but as something 'fun'.
Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
What would be the point? It isn't a word processor or some other standalone PC application. It's a tightly bound hardware controller - half of the "code" isn't in bits and bytes, it's out in the actuators and sensors. (Not that a tenth of the OSS community would even understand the problem domain.)
By that definition, there never was an era of the PC because virtually nobody who wasn't a professional understood what the computer was actually doing once CPU's got more complex than the 4004. The same goes for memory and clock speed, whether hobbyists or early adopters, nobody has ever had enough of either.
As is usually the case with such claims, you're looking through rose colored glasses into the golden fields of fantasy - because the golden era you describe never existed.
Yep. I've said it before and I'll say it again - infotainment and edutainment and meaningless feel good "science" projects are doing a vast disservice to a whole generation of students. They don't actually learn anything and they don't learn how to learn. When the history of current education is written a century hence, STEM will be seen as a total failure.
No, the problem is you don't understand the problem domain and thus just repeat platitudes on the assumption that doing so makes you look wise. This system has been in place for years, all the old paper movers are long gone.
Everything *is* well documented - the problem is, the military pay system is way, way more complex than any civilian system. None of my old pay statements are handy (buried somewhere out in the garage if I still have them), but here's what went into my paycheck in the last year or so of my enlistment;
Had I gone back to sea, I'd have gotten sea pay - which amount depends on the total number of months served at a sea command during my career to date, so those months have to be tracked and the clock started and stopped as appropriate. (The services have a whole host of incentive, qualification, and duty status pay and allowances - jump, hazardous duty, onerous duty, etc... etc...)
Then there's annual leave (which isn't so different from the civilian world.)
On top of that, the system has to manage travel pay, the civilian pay system, retirees...
It's a complex system, and nowhere as simple as just 'parsing a text file'.
Yes, it is.
No, ignorant jackasses like yourself have distorted things - because you not only have no fecking clue what you're talking about, you've swallowed the bullshit, lies, and propaganda of equally ignorant people wholesale.
Here's all the information you could ever want: West Antarctica.
"It underscores the general sentiment of the copyright monopoly not protecting the creator of artwork, but protecting the big distribution monopolies, no matter who actually created the art."
I'm not sure that outside of small bubble of people who don't believe in copyright at all (let alone understand the concept that others have rights in the first place), that such sentiment is general.
No, the actual point is that subtitles are derivative works - which require permission from the holders of the copyright to create. Which is an example of copyright getting it exactly right. You aren't allowed to muck with someone else's work without their permission. That's the whole point of copyright,
Maybe that's true in your halcyon 'noble savage' scenario. In reality, art has largely been for hire since the dawn of civilization. Artists have to eat too.
Wait, what? What planet does he live on? Historically the USAF has been quite the opposite - chasing sweeping technological change whether it made sense or the technology was truly ready for the prime time. You want kneejerk resistance, you want the Navy, especially my fellow bubbleheads in the submarine service.
This isn't about technology, it's about social change - and that has always been been a tug-of-war in the USAF between the fighter and bomber communities.
It's partly because there is a certain level of age discrimination. It's partly because the average Slashdotter doesn't seem to be comfortable unless he's found a reason to feel persecuted.
*Sigh*. I've said it before, but it doesn't appear to be penetrating the tinfoil.
The US goverment doesn't care whether you conduct your transactions in dollar, Bitcoins, or jars of hamster poop. They simply don't. So long as you can calculate a dollar equivalent and pay the appropriate tax in dollars - you're golden.
People can already bargain directly with each other - using plain old US dollars. (Cash if you want to reduce traceability.) Or they can use the "I'll do this for you if you do this more me" barter route, which is perfectly legal. There's also any number of alternate currencies in circulation in the US - completely unmolested by the government.
The US government is not trying to eliminate the bitcoin except in the ignorant minds of those who don't feel validated unless they feel persecuted.
Sadly, neither the summary or the article makes the situation clear.
No, in print books have pretty much never been priced on demand or whim. For an individual book, the price remains the same for all customers at a brick and mortar store. Amazon prices them by perceived value to an individual customer - and even then, they'll vary significantly from day-to-day.
I like non fiction submarine books (for example), Amazon has figured this out... and I haven't seen a sale price on one for years.. (But my wife does on her account if she remembers to check "this is a gift".) I ordered the DVD of A Certain Scientific Railgun last week, and today the manga was a higher price than it was two weeks ago. The UNIX book (just as a generic example) that you bought for for $29.99 last week? Amazon might offer it to me for $20.00 and eligible for free shipping because I've never bought a UNIX book. Etc... etc...
It has nothing to do with supply and demand, and everything to do with maximizing Amazon's profit margin at the expense of the consumer.
Breaking news - you're a clueless git who no more understands the situation than my keyboard does. But that doesn't stop you from typing platitudes, or equally clueless moderators from modding you (or many others of similar ilk) in this discussion) up.
Amazon isn't pricing books based on supply and demand - they're pricing them based on perceived value to the individual customer. I like non fiction submarine books (for example), Amazon figures this out... and I'll never see a sale price on a submarine book again. I ordered the DVD of A Certain Scientific Railgun last week, and today the manga was a higher price than it was two weeks ago. Etc... etc...
If by that you mean that uneducated or ignorant people it has different meanings, I'll agree with you. But to educated people, it means just one thing.
You'd be half right at best - today's approach was steep, the normal pattern is much shallower.