But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII.
Really? WWII?
How about... A LOT!.
How many is a lot? $1 Trillion is a lot of money. So if we're only talking a few dozen, and we still win most of those anyway, even with our 1970's fleet, maybe that money could be better spent elsewhere?
the US will create about $385 trillion of wealth and the Federal government will collect $71 trillion in tax revenue. Spending 0.2% of that product on a powerful weapon is entirely reasonable.
Show us your sums. Spend a dollar, make $71. How do I get in on this action?
If it works it'll revolutionize aerial warfare and instantly make every Air Force in the world obsolete. Especially the one belonging to Vladimir Putin.
You really just said that? Even though TFA says it can be beaten by a fighter built in the 70's?
If your CO handed you a photo of a nondescript building and said "Intel says a terrorist cell is hiding out here, hit it with a hellfire" What would you do? You would probably do what most of us would take them at their word and follow the order. When you read next week in the Time about how the CIA fucked up again and the place was full of civilians you'd feel guilty and not re-enlist when the time come, a problem the Air Force currently is having.
How is this different from every war ever fought ever?
I would love for that to be true. But I'm reminded of a maxim of Napoleon, "To have good soldiers, a nation must always be at war." Substantial military advantage will accrue to countries which fight on a regular basis. And if that advantage becomes great enough, then we may well see the real "organized" war of which you speak.
That's still true, it's just that the tools of war have changed from bullets to computers. Countries such as Greece have been brought to their knees by foreign powers without a single shot being fired, why the fuck are we still investing in WW2 strategies for battle?
Doesn't even need to be that high tech. A drone version with 50 cheap cameras pointing in every direction, with a room full of gamers dedicated to watching them
This could be done for a few thousand dollars, and since the gamers only need to be on active duty few a few hours during an actual conflict, the system pays for itself from saving 30 years of feeding, clothing and housing each pilot you no longer need.
Still no citation? Instead it's straight to ad hominem?
I'm not pro-nuke, I'm pro facts. The fact still remains that Nuclear energy is the cleanest option on the table for large reliable base loads. You show me proof of something else that does the same thing with less pollution at similar or lower costs and I'll support it.
Facts over fantasy.
But the drivers are going to have to carry insurance which is willing to cover them,
This is probably the crux of the issue. For some reason a business requires public liability insurance which is far more costly than a private person performing the exact same function. Why is that?
eg.
you drive your car -> no insurance (outside regular insurance)
you drive your car with your friends onboard -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker who remunerates you somehow -> suddenly you have to pay insurance
I don't know how insurance and liability works legally, but I think there exists a new space between private person, and big company, where public liability should scale along with expected risks ie If I go ride sharing with someone privately, I expect the risk to slightly more than if I was going as a passenger of a branded business. Therefore less burden should be on the operator and more on the individual. For those not willing to accept these risks, they can stick to higher priced official means of transport.
Look up north. Canada provides most of its base load power with hydroelectric supplemented with a smaller fraction of oil and natural gas. Coal plays a very small role. Nuclear plays a role but it's almost all around the major population centers of Ontario, consistent with my first point.
There are plenty of other countries (some of them large countries) which don't use coal and nuclear to any large extent. Norway is mostly hydro and wind. Iceland is mostly geothermal and hydro. Brazil is nearly 80% renewables.
But go on, explain to me how nuclear and coal are absolutely essential and everyone uses them.
There's a reason all those countries are "mostly" instead of "totally", and those reasons I've already explained.
So does wind/solar when stored. No one proposing renewable energy as base load isn't also aware that we have to store the energy, and upgrade the grid to push energy around to where it is needed.
Yeah but right now today there are no practical proven solutions. It's fine to talk about the future, but policy makers have to make decisions now, and banking on future maybes is not the types of risks they should be taking
As far as I can tell, renewable costs are continuing to steadily decline, while nuclear has stayed the same for a long time. I haven't looked in a while, but I'd be willing to guess that if renewable+storage costs haven't already, they will be cheaper than any other source of energy soon.
I agree. But soon is not now, and we have decisions that need to be made now (actually they should've been made 10 years ago). Given all the proven solutions on the table today, nuclear is the least worst base load option.
Windows is no longer useful to the power user or developer in a corporate environment (that doesn't grok these things), just because security policy will usually demand that your computer is made to be useless,
Which is why every place I've ever worked in the last 10 years has a "Dev" environment not on the corp network. We have a whole bunch of Windows VMs on a separate network specifically for such users to allow them to do their jobs.
At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc.
Training? Inspections? Taxis must be run differently in your country because here the only requirement here is to pay a fee for insurance and registration, there is no training or inspections, or if there are they are dodgy because there is no evidence of it.
then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.
The taxi industry brought this on themselves. They are the ones that lobbied for decades for stricter licensing as a mechanism to restrict competition. They made a lot of money by increasing the barrier to entry, and now faced with losing it all.
I think there exist space for both models, just not sure of how to differentiate the two, which I think is the issue regulators are also struggling with.
Case with Uber is similar. Registered taxi services have to carry passengers at pre-determined rate. Sometimes it is not profitable specially if a customer stays in area from which you don't easily get return passengers.
Registered taxis have to carry passengers, but they don't. I regularly get refused service from taxis because of my destination, and have even been kicked out half way through my trip home because the cabbie didn't want to go all that way then risk coming back without a fare. Yes it's illegal, but that is the current state of the industry. It is a monopoly and it is corrupt.
This gets compensated when you customer and return as well. With Uber, they will charge more or less based on the analytics and eventually registered taxi drivers would lend up serving less profitable areas and more profitable routes will be undercut by Uber.
Only if they are uncompetitive. Currently it is a monopoly, Uber introduces competition which forces Taxis and Uber to compete for the good fares. The biggest benefit of Uber which doesn't fit you bus analogy, is that there is a number of casual drivers with Uber who don't necessarily chase big fares. These people aren't all crowding the busy areas and seem happy to hang out in their local area to pick up a few dollars pocket money. This creates a much more widely spread service offering, and hence overall better service.
If Uber is allowed, it should have the exact same requirements: Publish fare, must take customers at this rate irrespective of where you want to go and should take passengers strictly in the order in which requests are incoming. Otherwise, it is giving unfair advantage to Uber over taxi service.
I have no problem with a dynamic fare structure. Fare estimates are given before you commit, and like flights, high demand should be allowed to generate higher fares, as long as there is genuine competition. I would prefer the choice of paying more and actually getting a ride, then having no way of getting home (which was the case a lot of the time due to the poorly run taxi monopoly)
This means that the Leaf will cost roughly $3k/year, and the 'similar gas car' is $1.5k.
So twice the price then? Plus you missed resale which is the biggest factor in TCO. The market for second hand small city cars is strong, the market for second hand EVs is near zero.
Oh, and a leaf is going to be more luxurious than a $15k car, even new.
I can only assume you've never seen one in real life. they are horrid. Comparing like for like, the Leaf cost the same as a similarly sized VW Golf Gti. No sane human anywhere would choose the Leaf in that comparison.
Fuck no!
Corolla (or similar) has more power, more range, same features, for half the price. And it doesn't look like an absolute turkey (seriously have you one of these things in the metal?)
I'll happily pay for a Tesla over a similarly priced E class Merc or 5 series BMW, because they are similar (I prefer the Tesla personally). But the value proposition of an overpriced underpowered fugly jap hatchback is just not there.
Shall we remove all confederate items from museums? Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened? If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened?
No, no, no, and no.
The civil war happened. Slavery happened. Racism happened, and it is still happening. Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.
Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism.
We are. Preventing the Government from flying a banner of racism is part of that fight.
Slashdot Mirror
But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII.
Really? WWII?
How about... A LOT!.
How many is a lot? $1 Trillion is a lot of money. So if we're only talking a few dozen, and we still win most of those anyway, even with our 1970's fleet, maybe that money could be better spent elsewhere?
the US will create about $385 trillion of wealth and the Federal government will collect $71 trillion in tax revenue. Spending 0.2% of that product on a powerful weapon is entirely reasonable.
Show us your sums. Spend a dollar, make $71. How do I get in on this action?
Or for the same cost, do I deploy 100,000 armed drones as a defence shield with zero risk of pilot casualty?
And if the Chinese hackers work as well as they're planning this thing will never leave the ground in one piece. See how that works?
If it works it'll revolutionize aerial warfare and instantly make every Air Force in the world obsolete. Especially the one belonging to Vladimir Putin.
You really just said that? Even though TFA says it can be beaten by a fighter built in the 70's?
If your CO handed you a photo of a nondescript building and said "Intel says a terrorist cell is hiding out here, hit it with a hellfire" What would you do? You would probably do what most of us would take them at their word and follow the order. When you read next week in the Time about how the CIA fucked up again and the place was full of civilians you'd feel guilty and not re-enlist when the time come, a problem the Air Force currently is having.
How is this different from every war ever fought ever?
How is this different from a session of GTA5? Maybe they're hiring the wrong type of people?
I would love for that to be true. But I'm reminded of a maxim of Napoleon, "To have good soldiers, a nation must always be at war." Substantial military advantage will accrue to countries which fight on a regular basis. And if that advantage becomes great enough, then we may well see the real "organized" war of which you speak.
That's still true, it's just that the tools of war have changed from bullets to computers. Countries such as Greece have been brought to their knees by foreign powers without a single shot being fired, why the fuck are we still investing in WW2 strategies for battle?
Doesn't even need to be that high tech. A drone version with 50 cheap cameras pointing in every direction, with a room full of gamers dedicated to watching them
This could be done for a few thousand dollars, and since the gamers only need to be on active duty few a few hours during an actual conflict, the system pays for itself from saving 30 years of feeding, clothing and housing each pilot you no longer need.
Still no citation? Instead it's straight to ad hominem?
I'm not pro-nuke, I'm pro facts. The fact still remains that Nuclear energy is the cleanest option on the table for large reliable base loads. You show me proof of something else that does the same thing with less pollution at similar or lower costs and I'll support it.
Facts over fantasy.
Says the person who can't cite a single example of a major country that doesn't rely on Coal or Nuke yet continues to believe no-one needs them....
But the drivers are going to have to carry insurance which is willing to cover them,
This is probably the crux of the issue. For some reason a business requires public liability insurance which is far more costly than a private person performing the exact same function. Why is that?
eg.
you drive your car -> no insurance (outside regular insurance)
you drive your car with your friends onboard -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker who remunerates you somehow -> suddenly you have to pay insurance
I don't know how insurance and liability works legally, but I think there exists a new space between private person, and big company, where public liability should scale along with expected risks ie If I go ride sharing with someone privately, I expect the risk to slightly more than if I was going as a passenger of a branded business. Therefore less burden should be on the operator and more on the individual. For those not willing to accept these risks, they can stick to higher priced official means of transport.
> Name them.
Seriously? You're too lazy to google?
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Look up north. Canada provides most of its base load power with hydroelectric supplemented with a smaller fraction of oil and natural gas. Coal plays a very small role. Nuclear plays a role but it's almost all around the major population centers of Ontario, consistent with my first point.
There are plenty of other countries (some of them large countries) which don't use coal and nuclear to any large extent. Norway is mostly hydro and wind. Iceland is mostly geothermal and hydro. Brazil is nearly 80% renewables.
But go on, explain to me how nuclear and coal are absolutely essential and everyone uses them.
There's a reason all those countries are "mostly" instead of "totally", and those reasons I've already explained.
moronic
Ironic.
Not a fan of Science Fiction then?
So does wind/solar when stored. No one proposing renewable energy as base load isn't also aware that we have to store the energy, and upgrade the grid to push energy around to where it is needed.
Yeah but right now today there are no practical proven solutions. It's fine to talk about the future, but policy makers have to make decisions now, and banking on future maybes is not the types of risks they should be taking
As far as I can tell, renewable costs are continuing to steadily decline, while nuclear has stayed the same for a long time. I haven't looked in a while, but I'd be willing to guess that if renewable+storage costs haven't already, they will be cheaper than any other source of energy soon.
I agree. But soon is not now, and we have decisions that need to be made now (actually they should've been made 10 years ago). Given all the proven solutions on the table today, nuclear is the least worst base load option.
+1 to that.
Windows is no longer useful to the power user or developer in a corporate environment (that doesn't grok these things), just because security policy will usually demand that your computer is made to be useless,
Which is why every place I've ever worked in the last 10 years has a "Dev" environment not on the corp network. We have a whole bunch of Windows VMs on a separate network specifically for such users to allow them to do their jobs.
At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc.
Training? Inspections? Taxis must be run differently in your country because here the only requirement here is to pay a fee for insurance and registration, there is no training or inspections, or if there are they are dodgy because there is no evidence of it.
then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.
The taxi industry brought this on themselves. They are the ones that lobbied for decades for stricter licensing as a mechanism to restrict competition. They made a lot of money by increasing the barrier to entry, and now faced with losing it all.
I think there exist space for both models, just not sure of how to differentiate the two, which I think is the issue regulators are also struggling with.
Case with Uber is similar. Registered taxi services have to carry passengers at pre-determined rate. Sometimes it is not profitable specially if a customer stays in area from which you don't easily get return passengers.
Registered taxis have to carry passengers, but they don't. I regularly get refused service from taxis because of my destination, and have even been kicked out half way through my trip home because the cabbie didn't want to go all that way then risk coming back without a fare. Yes it's illegal, but that is the current state of the industry. It is a monopoly and it is corrupt.
This gets compensated when you customer and return as well. With Uber, they will charge more or less based on the analytics and eventually registered taxi drivers would lend up serving less profitable areas and more profitable routes will be undercut by Uber.
Only if they are uncompetitive. Currently it is a monopoly, Uber introduces competition which forces Taxis and Uber to compete for the good fares. The biggest benefit of Uber which doesn't fit you bus analogy, is that there is a number of casual drivers with Uber who don't necessarily chase big fares. These people aren't all crowding the busy areas and seem happy to hang out in their local area to pick up a few dollars pocket money. This creates a much more widely spread service offering, and hence overall better service.
If Uber is allowed, it should have the exact same requirements: Publish fare, must take customers at this rate irrespective of where you want to go and should take passengers strictly in the order in which requests are incoming. Otherwise, it is giving unfair advantage to Uber over taxi service.
I have no problem with a dynamic fare structure. Fare estimates are given before you commit, and like flights, high demand should be allowed to generate higher fares, as long as there is genuine competition. I would prefer the choice of paying more and actually getting a ride, then having no way of getting home (which was the case a lot of the time due to the poorly run taxi monopoly)
And what does that have to do with the eligibility to have a flag?
This means that the Leaf will cost roughly $3k/year, and the 'similar gas car' is $1.5k.
So twice the price then? Plus you missed resale which is the biggest factor in TCO. The market for second hand small city cars is strong, the market for second hand EVs is near zero.
Oh, and a leaf is going to be more luxurious than a $15k car, even new.
I can only assume you've never seen one in real life. they are horrid. Comparing like for like, the Leaf cost the same as a similarly sized VW Golf Gti. No sane human anywhere would choose the Leaf in that comparison.
Fuck no!
Corolla (or similar) has more power, more range, same features, for half the price. And it doesn't look like an absolute turkey (seriously have you one of these things in the metal?)
I'll happily pay for a Tesla over a similarly priced E class Merc or 5 series BMW, because they are similar (I prefer the Tesla personally). But the value proposition of an overpriced underpowered fugly jap hatchback is just not there.
Shall we remove all confederate items from museums? Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened? If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened?
No, no, no, and no.
The civil war happened. Slavery happened. Racism happened, and it is still happening. Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.
Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism.
We are. Preventing the Government from flying a banner of racism is part of that fight.
It sounds like you are being intolerant of intolerance?
I have no problem with being bigoted against stupidity. Nature enforces this with extreme prejudice.
That's why I like Tattoos. Instant beacon of stupidity for anyone showing one off.