The F-35 isn't capable of mach 2+. It can't even super-cruise.
In fact there's a heck of a lot the F-35 still can't do, and the effects of vibrations on the (custom for each pilot) helmet's internal display is known to be a major ongoing development problem.
Yes, the climate is changing. It's always been changing since the Earth was made/accreted. We've known for a long time from the geologic record that wild swings in climate are possible in as little as 20 years, and that we've been living in an uncharacteristically stable period, temp-wise. Ice ages happen. Seas rise and fall. Volcanoes erupt and wipe away a summer every once in a while.
We also know that in North America, we've been living in an unusually wet period too. It's usually much drier.
So accept it. The Earth's climate isn't stable. We might be adding or subtracting a degree here and there, but one volcano eruption can easily undo whatever we might geo-engineer to "fix" things. Assuming that we even know how to "fix" the climate instead of just making things worse.
It's been bubble time for a while now, but let's count how many people are going to be surprised when the bubble inevitably pops.
The venture won't see that, though -- my prediction it's an obviously dumb idea that will go exactly nowhere. In the meantime, I'll extract maximum laughter out of it.
If you don't think it's a good idea, then you obviously need to up your "micro-dose" of LSD.;)
And if you go back even farther, coffee wasn't really a part of American households until after World War I when returning veterans bought back a taste for it, having had it in their rations.
Sounds like coffee took off in the US at the same time that it industrialized (like tea in Britain). Caffeine is quite useful when your life revolves around a clock. Not so much when you're a farmer who rises and rests with the sun.
Remember that in WWII, something like 70% of the population still lived on farms. Now it's less than 10%. Take a trip through Kansas and you'll see plenty of 4/5ths abandoned towns that were full in the 40's and 50's.
I went to art school, where the LSD flowed freely. I never used it myself, because I'm too creative for my own good, but...
I'd watch my mates wandering around the city on acid, and prattling on about how "creative" it made them. But to a man/woman, their actual art/designs were only ever mediocre at best. While they lost valuable time tripping that they could have spent practicing their craft.
Clinton Foundation: Acceptance of "donations" from foreign nationals while Secretary of State; despite a written agreement with Obama not to do so. Foundation itself gives less than 10% of what it takes in to charities. The rest is used for the personal expenses of the Clintons. Various laws about State Department email regulations and safe data handling bypassed in order to deliberately hide incriminating evidence.
Trump Foundation: Got caught using foundation funds to buy a piece of artwork for a donor. Fault was admitted, and fine was paid in full.
However greedy Trump is (and remember he's not taking a salary right now), Hillary is at least 10-20x worse. It's not just her greed, but how petty and unnecessary so much of it is. She'll lie to bag $500 or make off with White House property as much as she will for $350,000 "speeches" to Goldman Sachs.
and also a much more blatant law breaker.
Bollocks.
That's nothing but willful ignorance on your part.
You can't compare Trump to a perfect opponent, because he only faced a series of incompetent opponents on both sides.
Straw man.
Reality.
Trump sucks, but nobody better stood up on the Republican side, or was allowed through the primary on the Democrat side. If you think Hillary was in any way better, then you're ignoring the reality of her criminal history, her rank incompetence as SecState (Obama had to constantly work around her), and the fact that she was beholden to banksters and foreign interests instead of the needs of the USA. Trump, for all of his many faults, is only beholden to his own aims and those who voted for him.
Yeah, must be global warming. It couldn't possibly be a long-term effect of a pollution event as real and measurable as the BP oil spill and the methods used to clean... er... hide it.
Continuing oil flow anyone?
Diffused outflow of methane in a several kilometer radius around the "capped" drill site through micro-fractures in the salt dome?
The candidate that seems to at least understand a voter's problems will always beat one that either ignores them, or is seen as actively participating in making them worse.
THAT is why Trump won.
Look to the DNC and ask why they couldn't come up with (or allow through) a better candidate than the one their insiders chose. The problem wasn't Trump, it was the morons that Trump was running against. Find better candidates.
By your logic, we would never have made it out of the 19th century. After all, the light bulb put thousands of candle-makers out of work. But it also allowed us to work at night, and in climate-controlled buildings where productivity improved across the board. Making new businesses and jobs possible that weren't practical before.
Light bulb experts were needed. Who soon specialized into incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, sodium vapor, and LED specialists. As each sub-industry grew, each needed new experts in a hundred different stages of production for each type of bulb. From mining raw materials, to refining, to design and production of the components, to delivery and sale of the final products.
If our civilization is to survive and expand into space, for instance, then we need thousands of workers who don't yet exist. We need space engineers, janitors, architects, pilots, miners, construction workers, etc. Where do you think they'll come from if current population trends continue?
Answer: They'll come from the labor freed up by automating the transportation of consumer goods, food service, etc. That's not a bad thing, it's an improvement in the use of human time for more productive ends.
Unless your political philosophy promotes the idea that humans should just sit on their rear and suck the government's teat idle every time adversity strikes. Or you economic philosophy favors over-specialization of a company's economy in a way that excludes those with few tech skills, for instance.
Aren't both groups just falling back to the mean of what someone is likely to remember about a show? It's just that the binge watchers start from a higher level of retained short-term knowledge before their brains complete the process of saving the most important/distinct (to them) impressions to long-term memory, and discarding the rest.
As a professional photographer, I agree. Flash is useless at sporting events and performances. Hell, it's mostly useless everywhere else. Anything you could possibly need it for can be corrected in post if you shoot in a RAW format.
I can't tell you how many people I've taken aside at such events and shown them (because they don't know) how to turn off the flash on the $2000 camera that they only play with for an hour every 6 months.
The reaction is always "WOW, that DOES look a lot better!"
The apple contains, within its fiber, the things you need to digest its fructose. Thus the fructose does not have to be stored away in your liver.
Fructose in processed foods does not come with the fiber required for its digestion. When this happens, its damaging effect on the liver is very similar to that of alcohol.
Aren't something like 1/4 of all the KKK's (and similar groups) membership FBI informants? I can't remember his name, but there was one particularly vile internet NAZI, who got arrested right after Obama took office. His was the literal definition of hate speech, and was gaining more traction than most (I had black students of mine asking about whether they should be scared after reading his stuff). It later came out in court that he was on the FBI's payroll. Presumably to inform on those who contacted him.
So to fight the NAZIs, the FBI was paying someone to be the MOST extreme possible NAZI? (faceplam)
Ah, the get-what-you-put-in-it reasoning. Luck is a much bigger part of succes than hard work.
Luck is just when preparation finally meets opportunity.
Nobody gets "lucky" in life or business by sitting around staring at a wall. But if you're actively engaged in bettering yourself, or your skills, in some way, then "luck" will appear, like magic, on a regular basis.
It seems reasonable to me that the man should bear reduced (or even zero, depending on the case) personal financial burden if he can somehow prove that he was lied to about birth control status for the purpose of conception. But that's about as far as that reasonably goes.
If HE can prove? How about we shift the burden of proof to the person making the accusation of (insert irresponsible conduct)? HE should be presumed innocent until proven guilty with evidence.
That is, after all, supposed to be the entire basis of our justice system.
Carbon and methane are the only problems? What about massive Gulf-Stream diverting oil spills and the ongoing cluster---- that is Fukushima in Japan?
What? There aren't any profits for the Bankster class in fighting real, measurable pollution, punishing the companies that do it, and coming up with long-term cleanup and sequestration solutions for real toxic waste?
Better to start markets in carbon offsets! Nobody has to do anything! The public will feel better! And the banksters will make millions!
Apple has great technology. But unlike in the 80's and 90's, technology comes second (or lower) at the Apple of today.
You have a very different memory of Apple in the 80's and 90's than I do. Apple was pretty, but barely usable garbage in the 80's. In the 90's they went full marketing-tard, lost their way completely, and we got garbage like the Performa that couldn't go an hour without crashing. You HAD to buy one of the licensed Power Computing machines in order to get any real work done. In 1998, I was proud that I'd configured my work Mac so that it "only" crashed 2-3 times a day.
OSX, circa 2003-2004, was what finally made me take notice of Apple again. Impressed with the stability and usability of the Macs I used at work, I bought my first MacBook in 2007.
Apple has definitely become more about fashion than functionality lately, forcing me to add a dedicated PC to my Mac collection for 3D app performance. But they are finally showing some signs of recognizing that they're losing a good number of the developers that they depend on due to crap overpriced hardware.
Making stuff ugly for people. Every time I see iOS 7+ or OSX Yosemite and later, I want to vomit. I used to love Apple until they "redesigned" everything. Something finally hit me looking at the pictures: they present something very drab and emotionless and try to add a few highlights to make you think it isn't the same drab, boring thing you've been looking at all along.
Have you used Win10 lately? MacOS, for all its faults, is miles better in terms of design and usability. Microsoft can't even be bothered to unify the look of its awful "modern" UI elements with the legacy control panels that go all the way back to Win2000. Much less concatenate their two(!) control panels into one. They'd much rather concentrate on live-tile ads and other you-can't-uninstall-that BS crapware that I shouldn't have to put up with when I've actually paid full price for their OS.
Plus some idiot decided that the Task Manager shouldn't be "always on top" by default. Which means that unless you've found and fixed that setting, a crashed full-screen app can force you to log-out or reboot to regain control of your computer – losing all your open work. You know, like in 1993.
Don't even get me started on how Win10 mishandles screens with different resolutions and UI scaling factors. Something which is perfectly handled on MacOS.
The treaty: "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means OF USE or occupation, or BY ANY OTHER means;"
Space mining is illegal under the treaty we/they signed up to, if you don't like it, negotiate a new treaty.
Sovereignty is established by your ability to defend, with force, that which you lay claim to.
Once outer-space mining becomes a thing, piracy will also appear. At that point all the kumbaya BS will give way to the reality of needing to protect, with force, that which people/companies have made the effort to extract for their own profit.
Depends. Instagram has copied Snapchat to huge success.
The key is that Firefox couldn't copy Chrome's speed. If they could have made it as light and fast as Chrome before they lost their market share, it would have worked.
Copying works IF you're at the top and are quick about it.
Another negative example would be Microsoft's obsession with copying the look/feel (and high margins) of Apple, without understanding why Apple does things the way it does. Not only did MS forget that their actual strength is in being the mass-market, low-margin OS provider, but that distraction allowed Google to swoop in and dominate the mass-market, low-market phone/tablet market that Microsoft SHOULD have been concentrating on instead, and has also allowed Google to make inroads in threatening both Office and the very-low end of the commodity PC market.
Before Chrome, Firefox topped out at a 70-80% share of web sessions. They were indisputably the leader until 1) Google pulled their financial support and made their own browser, and 2) Mozilla started caring more about the political past of its management than the quality of its product.
3 Boys in northern Indianapolis (and a very large house) on half of what you say you're making. Most of the families on my street have 3 kids too. We also have one of the best school systems in the country. My wife works, and I stay home.
If you're living in Silicon Valley, then you'll only be able to afford one kid, sure. But that's why I moved out of the valley when I turned 30, and started thinking about having a family. Good thing too, because nobody else on my side of the family is having any kids at all, and the total on my wife's side for 7 couples our age is 7 kids. Including our 3.
My grandfather was the youngest of 7. This nation's priorities are way out of whack.
Slashdot Mirror
The F-35 isn't capable of mach 2+. It can't even super-cruise.
In fact there's a heck of a lot the F-35 still can't do, and the effects of vibrations on the (custom for each pilot) helmet's internal display is known to be a major ongoing development problem.
Yes, the climate is changing. It's always been changing since the Earth was made/accreted. We've known for a long time from the geologic record that wild swings in climate are possible in as little as 20 years, and that we've been living in an uncharacteristically stable period, temp-wise. Ice ages happen. Seas rise and fall. Volcanoes erupt and wipe away a summer every once in a while.
We also know that in North America, we've been living in an unusually wet period too. It's usually much drier.
So accept it. The Earth's climate isn't stable. We might be adding or subtracting a degree here and there, but one volcano eruption can easily undo whatever we might geo-engineer to "fix" things. Assuming that we even know how to "fix" the climate instead of just making things worse.
It's been bubble time for a while now, but let's count how many people are going to be surprised when the bubble inevitably pops.
The venture won't see that, though -- my prediction it's an obviously dumb idea that will go exactly nowhere. In the meantime, I'll extract maximum laughter out of it.
If you don't think it's a good idea, then you obviously need to up your "micro-dose" of LSD. ;)
And if you go back even farther, coffee wasn't really a part of American households until after World War I when returning veterans bought back a taste for it, having had it in their rations.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undert...
Sounds like coffee took off in the US at the same time that it industrialized (like tea in Britain). Caffeine is quite useful when your life revolves around a clock. Not so much when you're a farmer who rises and rests with the sun.
Remember that in WWII, something like 70% of the population still lived on farms. Now it's less than 10%. Take a trip through Kansas and you'll see plenty of 4/5ths abandoned towns that were full in the 40's and 50's.
I went to art school, where the LSD flowed freely. I never used it myself, because I'm too creative for my own good, but...
I'd watch my mates wandering around the city on acid, and prattling on about how "creative" it made them. But to a man/woman, their actual art/designs were only ever mediocre at best. While they lost valuable time tripping that they could have spent practicing their craft.
much greedier,
Poppycock.
Clinton Foundation: Acceptance of "donations" from foreign nationals while Secretary of State; despite a written agreement with Obama not to do so. Foundation itself gives less than 10% of what it takes in to charities. The rest is used for the personal expenses of the Clintons. Various laws about State Department email regulations and safe data handling bypassed in order to deliberately hide incriminating evidence.
Trump Foundation: Got caught using foundation funds to buy a piece of artwork for a donor. Fault was admitted, and fine was paid in full.
However greedy Trump is (and remember he's not taking a salary right now), Hillary is at least 10-20x worse. It's not just her greed, but how petty and unnecessary so much of it is. She'll lie to bag $500 or make off with White House property as much as she will for $350,000 "speeches" to Goldman Sachs.
and also a much more blatant law breaker.
Bollocks.
That's nothing but willful ignorance on your part.
You can't compare Trump to a perfect opponent, because he only faced a series of incompetent opponents on both sides.
Straw man.
Reality.
Trump sucks, but nobody better stood up on the Republican side, or was allowed through the primary on the Democrat side. If you think Hillary was in any way better, then you're ignoring the reality of her criminal history, her rank incompetence as SecState (Obama had to constantly work around her), and the fact that she was beholden to banksters and foreign interests instead of the needs of the USA. Trump, for all of his many faults, is only beholden to his own aims and those who voted for him.
Yeah, must be global warming. It couldn't possibly be a long-term effect of a pollution event as real and measurable as the BP oil spill and the methods used to clean... er... hide it.
Continuing oil flow anyone?
Diffused outflow of methane in a several kilometer radius around the "capped" drill site through micro-fractures in the salt dome?
Nobody really wants to look.
The Trump alternative was also a liar, much greedier, and also a much more blatant law breaker.
You can't compare Trump to a perfect opponent, because he only faced a series of incompetent opponents on both sides.
The candidate that seems to at least understand a voter's problems will always beat one that either ignores them, or is seen as actively participating in making them worse.
THAT is why Trump won.
Look to the DNC and ask why they couldn't come up with (or allow through) a better candidate than the one their insiders chose. The problem wasn't Trump, it was the morons that Trump was running against. Find better candidates.
By your logic, we would never have made it out of the 19th century. After all, the light bulb put thousands of candle-makers out of work. But it also allowed us to work at night, and in climate-controlled buildings where productivity improved across the board. Making new businesses and jobs possible that weren't practical before.
Light bulb experts were needed. Who soon specialized into incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, sodium vapor, and LED specialists. As each sub-industry grew, each needed new experts in a hundred different stages of production for each type of bulb. From mining raw materials, to refining, to design and production of the components, to delivery and sale of the final products.
If our civilization is to survive and expand into space, for instance, then we need thousands of workers who don't yet exist. We need space engineers, janitors, architects, pilots, miners, construction workers, etc. Where do you think they'll come from if current population trends continue?
Answer: They'll come from the labor freed up by automating the transportation of consumer goods, food service, etc. That's not a bad thing, it's an improvement in the use of human time for more productive ends.
Unless your political philosophy promotes the idea that humans should just sit on their rear and suck the government's teat idle every time adversity strikes. Or you economic philosophy favors over-specialization of a company's economy in a way that excludes those with few tech skills, for instance.
Aren't both groups just falling back to the mean of what someone is likely to remember about a show? It's just that the binge watchers start from a higher level of retained short-term knowledge before their brains complete the process of saving the most important/distinct (to them) impressions to long-term memory, and discarding the rest.
As a professional photographer, I agree. Flash is useless at sporting events and performances. Hell, it's mostly useless everywhere else. Anything you could possibly need it for can be corrected in post if you shoot in a RAW format.
I can't tell you how many people I've taken aside at such events and shown them (because they don't know) how to turn off the flash on the $2000 camera that they only play with for an hour every 6 months.
The reaction is always "WOW, that DOES look a lot better!"
The apple contains, within its fiber, the things you need to digest its fructose. Thus the fructose does not have to be stored away in your liver.
Fructose in processed foods does not come with the fiber required for its digestion. When this happens, its damaging effect on the liver is very similar to that of alcohol.
That is why the apple is healthier.
Aren't something like 1/4 of all the KKK's (and similar groups) membership FBI informants? I can't remember his name, but there was one particularly vile internet NAZI, who got arrested right after Obama took office. His was the literal definition of hate speech, and was gaining more traction than most (I had black students of mine asking about whether they should be scared after reading his stuff). It later came out in court that he was on the FBI's payroll. Presumably to inform on those who contacted him.
So to fight the NAZIs, the FBI was paying someone to be the MOST extreme possible NAZI? (faceplam)
Ah, the get-what-you-put-in-it reasoning. Luck is a much bigger part of succes than hard work.
Luck is just when preparation finally meets opportunity.
Nobody gets "lucky" in life or business by sitting around staring at a wall. But if you're actively engaged in bettering yourself, or your skills, in some way, then "luck" will appear, like magic, on a regular basis.
It seems reasonable to me that the man should bear reduced (or even zero, depending on the case) personal financial burden if he can somehow prove that he was lied to about birth control status for the purpose of conception. But that's about as far as that reasonably goes.
If HE can prove? How about we shift the burden of proof to the person making the accusation of (insert irresponsible conduct)? HE should be presumed innocent until proven guilty with evidence.
That is, after all, supposed to be the entire basis of our justice system.
Carbon and methane are the only problems? What about massive Gulf-Stream diverting oil spills and the ongoing cluster---- that is Fukushima in Japan?
What? There aren't any profits for the Bankster class in fighting real, measurable pollution, punishing the companies that do it, and coming up with long-term cleanup and sequestration solutions for real toxic waste?
Better to start markets in carbon offsets! Nobody has to do anything! The public will feel better! And the banksters will make millions!
Akiva Goldsman (the worst writer/producer in hollywood) is the executive producer. That's all you need to know right there.
Well apart from that he's producing "The Dark Tower" too. Stay far away.
Apple has great technology. But unlike in the 80's and 90's, technology comes second (or lower) at the Apple of today.
You have a very different memory of Apple in the 80's and 90's than I do. Apple was pretty, but barely usable garbage in the 80's. In the 90's they went full marketing-tard, lost their way completely, and we got garbage like the Performa that couldn't go an hour without crashing. You HAD to buy one of the licensed Power Computing machines in order to get any real work done. In 1998, I was proud that I'd configured my work Mac so that it "only" crashed 2-3 times a day.
OSX, circa 2003-2004, was what finally made me take notice of Apple again. Impressed with the stability and usability of the Macs I used at work, I bought my first MacBook in 2007.
Apple has definitely become more about fashion than functionality lately, forcing me to add a dedicated PC to my Mac collection for 3D app performance. But they are finally showing some signs of recognizing that they're losing a good number of the developers that they depend on due to crap overpriced hardware.
That comic needs an UX designer to increase its readability.
Making stuff ugly for people. Every time I see iOS 7+ or OSX Yosemite and later, I want to vomit. I used to love Apple until they "redesigned" everything. Something finally hit me looking at the pictures: they present something very drab and emotionless and try to add a few highlights to make you think it isn't the same drab, boring thing you've been looking at all along.
Have you used Win10 lately? MacOS, for all its faults, is miles better in terms of design and usability. Microsoft can't even be bothered to unify the look of its awful "modern" UI elements with the legacy control panels that go all the way back to Win2000. Much less concatenate their two(!) control panels into one. They'd much rather concentrate on live-tile ads and other you-can't-uninstall-that BS crapware that I shouldn't have to put up with when I've actually paid full price for their OS.
Plus some idiot decided that the Task Manager shouldn't be "always on top" by default. Which means that unless you've found and fixed that setting, a crashed full-screen app can force you to log-out or reboot to regain control of your computer – losing all your open work. You know, like in 1993.
Don't even get me started on how Win10 mishandles screens with different resolutions and UI scaling factors. Something which is perfectly handled on MacOS.
The treaty:
"outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means OF USE or occupation, or BY ANY OTHER means;"
Space mining is illegal under the treaty we/they signed up to, if you don't like it, negotiate a new treaty.
Sovereignty is established by your ability to defend, with force, that which you lay claim to.
Once outer-space mining becomes a thing, piracy will also appear. At that point all the kumbaya BS will give way to the reality of needing to protect, with force, that which people/companies have made the effort to extract for their own profit.
Depends. Instagram has copied Snapchat to huge success.
The key is that Firefox couldn't copy Chrome's speed. If they could have made it as light and fast as Chrome before they lost their market share, it would have worked.
Copying works IF you're at the top and are quick about it.
Another negative example would be Microsoft's obsession with copying the look/feel (and high margins) of Apple, without understanding why Apple does things the way it does. Not only did MS forget that their actual strength is in being the mass-market, low-margin OS provider, but that distraction allowed Google to swoop in and dominate the mass-market, low-market phone/tablet market that Microsoft SHOULD have been concentrating on instead, and has also allowed Google to make inroads in threatening both Office and the very-low end of the commodity PC market.
huh? Firefox was never the leader
Before Chrome, Firefox topped out at a 70-80% share of web sessions. They were indisputably the leader until 1) Google pulled their financial support and made their own browser, and 2) Mozilla started caring more about the political past of its management than the quality of its product.
3 Boys in northern Indianapolis (and a very large house) on half of what you say you're making. Most of the families on my street have 3 kids too. We also have one of the best school systems in the country. My wife works, and I stay home.
If you're living in Silicon Valley, then you'll only be able to afford one kid, sure. But that's why I moved out of the valley when I turned 30, and started thinking about having a family. Good thing too, because nobody else on my side of the family is having any kids at all, and the total on my wife's side for 7 couples our age is 7 kids. Including our 3.
My grandfather was the youngest of 7. This nation's priorities are way out of whack.