I'm not sure what airman ran over your dog, but you seem to have quite an axe to grind. I would certainly like to hear you tell Curtis LeMay or Robin Olds that they weren't in a real service.
By the way, when you say you can "deliver payloads anywhere in the world" - I assume you mean, after the USAF has achieved air superiority? And while the USAF provides your information through AWACS/JSTARS?
We ALL have a job to do; people need to get over their service rivalry and realize that.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm an officer in the USAF.)
I don't know how you're defining "the best," or why. Certainly, taking off from a carrier is more difficult than taking off from a runway, but after that what's the difference? Each service's air branch has its strengths and specialties.
USMC pilots support USMC ground troops, USN pilots support USN missions (and fly against ground targets, when it's practical), the USAF does, well, everything else. (Airlift, refueling, global strike, air superiority... etc.)
If I stand in front of a room full of people and talk for 7 minutes, with no outline or visual aids, people's attention is going to drift. (It may do that anyway, but I'm not going to help it along.:P) In my experience, as a listener, there's no organization to a stream of words coming at you - you have to break down and organize the message on your own, which provides additional strain on the listener, and many people would rather just think about something else. By providing a visual representation of the points you're discussing, a listener can associate the details of what you're saying with the listed main point. Also, you can throw related graphics up to keep the audience's interest.
When I was in USAF officer training, all the trainees were required to give several briefings throughout the program. We were told that we could use any visual aids we wanted (to include whiteboard, PowerPoint or... who knows.)
All 144 of us used PowerPoint, simply because it was the easiest way to complement what you were talking about.
I have a feeling that once he got into office and got briefed on everything, he realized things weren't quite as simple as they looked from the campaign trail.
1. The sites would most likely be located away from the current nuclear sites in Montana/North Dakota/Wyoming. Possibly by repurposing one or more of the old Cold War nuclear sites in Missouri or South Dakota, or by using one of the space launch sites in California or Florida.
2. We already have nuclear ICBMs on alert 24/7. Keeping conventional ICBMs really wouldn't take that much extra effort, particularly since most AFBs already have a round-the-clock maintenance group.
3. Say we find out where bin Laden is hiding. Odds are he's not going to be there for long, and 30 minutes is a much better window than the time it would take to scramble a fighter/bomber/UAV and get it into firing range.
I have my profile set so that it can only be viewed by friends of friends. Opened my profile link in another browser, and got a message saying "not found."
If you're flying an A-10 or an F-15E, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, you get confirmation and go home. When you're flying a UAV, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, then you immediately see the results of what you did live on your sensor screen. And it's rarely pretty.
I have no idea what the Legislature means by "custom software" (and didn't see a definition in the article) but I'm guessing that it would be software written for a specific niche or client - in which case, Microsoft would really be the *least* likely to fall under that definition. Word, Excel, etc. are hardly "custom applications."
And if they are, well, that means just about all the software ever written would be "custom software."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what airman ran over your dog, but you seem to have quite an axe to grind. I would certainly like to hear you tell Curtis LeMay or Robin Olds that they weren't in a real service.
By the way, when you say you can "deliver payloads anywhere in the world" - I assume you mean, after the USAF has achieved air superiority? And while the USAF provides your information through AWACS/JSTARS?
We ALL have a job to do; people need to get over their service rivalry and realize that.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm an officer in the USAF.)
I don't know how you're defining "the best," or why. Certainly, taking off from a carrier is more difficult than taking off from a runway, but after that what's the difference? Each service's air branch has its strengths and specialties.
USMC pilots support USMC ground troops, USN pilots support USN missions (and fly against ground targets, when it's practical), the USAF does, well, everything else. (Airlift, refueling, global strike, air superiority... etc.)
Well, put it this way.
If I stand in front of a room full of people and talk for 7 minutes, with no outline or visual aids, people's attention is going to drift. (It may do that anyway, but I'm not going to help it along. :P) In my experience, as a listener, there's no organization to a stream of words coming at you - you have to break down and organize the message on your own, which provides additional strain on the listener, and many people would rather just think about something else. By providing a visual representation of the points you're discussing, a listener can associate the details of what you're saying with the listed main point. Also, you can throw related graphics up to keep the audience's interest.
Plus, it helps keep you on-track as a speaker.
When I was in USAF officer training, all the trainees were required to give several briefings throughout the program. We were told that we could use any visual aids we wanted (to include whiteboard, PowerPoint or... who knows.)
All 144 of us used PowerPoint, simply because it was the easiest way to complement what you were talking about.
The question is, how many could be launched before they became the target of some concentrated returned fire.
I have a feeling that once he got into office and got briefed on everything, he realized things weren't quite as simple as they looked from the campaign trail.
... which is why the Russians would be allowed regular inspections.
Did you read the article at all? Half the points you've raised are covered in it.
1. The sites would most likely be located away from the current nuclear sites in Montana/North Dakota/Wyoming. Possibly by repurposing one or more of the old Cold War nuclear sites in Missouri or South Dakota, or by using one of the space launch sites in California or Florida.
2. We already have nuclear ICBMs on alert 24/7. Keeping conventional ICBMs really wouldn't take that much extra effort, particularly since most AFBs already have a round-the-clock maintenance group.
3. Say we find out where bin Laden is hiding. Odds are he's not going to be there for long, and 30 minutes is a much better window than the time it would take to scramble a fighter/bomber/UAV and get it into firing range.
"You know what else does that? A phone. A letter. Walking to their house and knocking on the door."
Yes, writing the same letter to 50+ people is certainly a good use of my time.
I have my profile set so that it can only be viewed by friends of friends. Opened my profile link in another browser, and got a message saying "not found."
Seriously, "no longer investing in iPhone-based Flash development" is not even close to the same thing as "Adobe Stops Development For iPhone."
Nod32 conflicts with a different Windows component, GDI32.
*ducks*
"I don't use AV and have had pretty much zero issues over the last 6 years" ... that you know of.
Don't you mean "cowpower?"
Gesundheit!
Words like what?
Things like that are capable of unexpectedly altering the system, something typically frowned upon in enterprise.
Agreed. Our administrators are perfectly capable of bricking our systems on their own, thank you very much.
... unless they pack it into one giant building and call it an arcology.
Serious business.
Every day? Maybe at first...
And behold... a challenger appears!
If you're flying an A-10 or an F-15E, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, you get confirmation and go home. When you're flying a UAV, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, then you immediately see the results of what you did live on your sensor screen. And it's rarely pretty.
... well, technically, one rocket is one launcher. But you wouldn't have multiple MIRVs on one rocket, so...
One warhead is one warhead.
A MIRV would count as one launcher.
Don't be dense. "Anywhere" being "anywhere that a valid administrative user is logged onto an authenticated machine."
It becomes a necessity when the helpdesk is located five states away, or on another continent.
I have no idea what the Legislature means by "custom software" (and didn't see a definition in the article) but I'm guessing that it would be software written for a specific niche or client - in which case, Microsoft would really be the *least* likely to fall under that definition. Word, Excel, etc. are hardly "custom applications."
And if they are, well, that means just about all the software ever written would be "custom software."