How would you actually enforce that? I can see a few potential problems:
I disagree. I can't see why software should be any different than other complex systems. The government routinely specifies the size, shape, and functionality of the things they purchase.
The military for example, specifies that MREs must be a certain size, a certain weight, and have a certain number of calories. Companies who complain that they must be allowed to "innovate" are laughed at.
Police departments specify that their cars must have very specific performance characteristics. Companies that say "we can't be forced to alter the product we already make" are similarly laughed at.
Why is software any different? Is it just because there is currently a monopoly?
Part of the problem I think is that software hasn't been a real priority as far as purchasing goes in the past. In my experience, software purchases are made at lower levels of management. There, decisions are made based on what can be bought at CompUSA. It's no wonder Microsoft Office ends up on everybody's machines.
Perhaps if the BSA cracks down on the government a little, they'll see the benefit in providing better guidance to those who make software purchases. Perhaps that will finally drive those purchases away from Microsoft's monopoly.
If you constantly ask question like: "teach me how to hack?" "how do I break into windows?" "do you have any zero-day exploits?"
They'll think you're stupid. You'll learn nothing. You see, anything is better than nothing.
If you just watch what they are already doing, you *will* learn something. Obviously, if you miss something you can ask "What was that?" They'll answer those questions. Just don't be an annoying little leach.
but if you can't express these ideas to people who don't already know most of what you're talking about, you're taking a lot of chances on somebody recognizing your genius.
I suspect these people who failed to express their ideas to you had very little respect for you and held you in such low regard as to be completely unconcerned with whether or not you recognized their genius.
I also suspect you'd have a similar experience if you asked a brain surgeon "how do you make it go?"
That said, this is not intended as a flame. I simply wanted to point out my own experience. I think some people can be quite articulate - and also very choosy about whom they articulate to. Once I stopped asking stupid questions, I found I was no longer seen as stupid and I ended up learning a lot more.
Or to put it another way: "it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt" -- Mark Twain
Identify where the missiles are coming from and bomb it, or send fighters down a parallel path
Yes definitely. But you know, if it goes as planned the aircraft are already on their way home by the time the first of the missiles are spotted. They're all launched at pretty much the same time, and remember these are large cruise missiles we're talking about here.
that carrier would have at last a full flight wing in the air, as well as being dead center of its carrier group. Any hostile trying to take out the carrier would have to go through a ring of aircraft - including AWACS with downward looking radar that doesn't really care if you're skimming the wave tops - followed by a ring of destroyers and cruisers. All fully armed with sea-to-air missiles and AEGIS anti-missile guns.
That's a pretty good summary of a basic fleet air defense. I think it's worth mentioning how the Soviet's actually planned to get through all that defense though.
The strategy is called a rollback. Basically, if you fire a lot missiles at an air defense system, each one will be intercepted a little closer to the target than the one before it. Slowly, the defenses are rolled back until missiles start getting through.
There's no way to stop a rollback. All Aegis or a good CWIS do is increase the number of missles required to roll the defenses back, or decrease the intercept range reduction from each missile. At some point, obviously, it would get too expensive (each cruise missile costs nearly 1mil) to fire that many - but it is always possible.
Other factors are fighter cover. The phoenix was designed to kill the bombers before they could launch (each backfire bomber destroyed = 3 cruise missiles). Submarines are a big factor. A submarine strike against one or two of the air defense cruisers (not the carrier itself) coordinated with the air strike is very effective.
Of course, the carrier group has its own subs to hunt the enemy subs. And the bombers can bring fighters to cover them. Offensive and defensive measures swing back and forth like that.
On top of that is the tactical use of all these weapons. When playing Harpoon, I used to like to feign an attack from one direction with a barrage launched by, say an Oscar submarine. Then I'd give the carrier taskforce just enough time to redeploy a couple of cruisers to that side and I'd hit them from the other side with a combined attack by bombers and subs.
If you're willing to spend the cash, it's really not all that hard to kill a single carrier. Of course, the bombers themselves need a large airbase - and that will be destroyed by the airforce right away... I could go on but you get the idea.
Thanks for the tip. I like it so far. For some reason, whenever I upload files with the web interface (using Opera) they are corrupted - but mapping the drive works great.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I want to show that link to anyone. I suspect many people will be satisfied by this:
the probability that the disease is present [A] if the test result is negative [~B] (i.e., the probability that a negative test result will be a false negative) = 0.0005
In other words, the test does a good job of identifying the innocent - or so it would seem.
MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs
The problem with this and all automated law enforcement schemes, be they traffic cameras or facial recognition, is that they create a substantial assumption of guilt that is almost impossible to refute. "The computer says you're guilty, so you must be"
People find it hard to believe a system that is actually catching lawbreakers can make a mistake, until the mistake lands *them* in trouble.
Let's examine the thread so far: night_flyer said: Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's and in response you say: GUN: Used for killing things.
[ducks as night_flyer's point zooms over your head] We are talking about responsibility, but if you want to talk about gun control: fyi, it is often the threat of being killed that prevents others from doing the killing in the first place.
on Earth, when you say "south", and that's it, nobody questions your reference point.
I may come off as a little impatient today. I'm sorry - it's not your fault. But I have to ask: how old are you? Are you really so naïve that you believe no one has or would ever question our designation of N/S? As an example, what we call North the Egyptians called South, because their reference was the Nile. People always disagree over silly things like this. So, of course we have to agree on a reference point. But my whole point is that you said it is possible to establish reference points - even in space.
To put it another way - just because there is no up or down doesn't mean you're lost.
Is there some sort of Force or galactic polls that give people in space a way to dissern North from South, if they even exist in space?
Is that a joke? You tell direction in space the same way you do on the Earth. Pick a reference point and orientation and derive whatever cardinal directions you need from that.
We could be anywhere in the (our) galaxy and if we agreed to face the direction of rotation, aligned with the plane of the galaxy, with the center of the galaxy 90 degrees to our left - north would be up and south would be down. Anywhere in the galaxy. If I told you to meet me 50K lt/yrs from the South Pole you could do it. Well, maybe someone smarter than you could do it.
The same idea works in the solar system. I suggest you download orbiter and play with it. Then maybe you'll understand these things.
the ads can't be doing a very good job of attracting attention to the products or services they are promoting.
Yeah, I really don't get it. Why don't they try simply extolling the virtues of the product? I'm actually offended when an ad tells me a) if I buy it I'll have sex or b) if I don't buy it I'll die. None of that bullshit is true - and it's quite insulting that they think I'm dumb enough to believe it.
Here's the first example that comes to mind: There's a Mitsubishi commercial where the guy meets a girl in a parking garage. She thinks he's cool as long as she also thinks he owns the Mitsubishi car. The message: don't miss out on sex with beautiful women - buy a Mitsubishi today! And yet they tell me nothing about the car (price, performance, safety, etc) I'm just supposed to buy it so I can have sex. What bullshit!
I'm seriously considering founding a religion based around google.
btw, rather than screw with registry settings to make IE conform, may I suggest you use Opera. It comes pre-configured to search google and many others. I use Opera with Javascript etc. turned off and only load IE when I find a page the requires that stuff. That system seems to work well.
Do you really expect a few PR hits to have any significant effect in the face of overwhelming advertising power and market dominance over most (admittedly mostly clueless) users?
I have to agree - and offer as evidence the jokes *everyone* makes about the instability of windows. The sheeple know their software sucks and they absolutely do not care. No matter what Microsoft does, the majority of people will continue to use it for the foreseeable future.
MS doesn't have to worry about PR - and god does that hurt to say
Slashdot Mirror
How would you actually enforce that? I can see a few potential problems:
I disagree. I can't see why software should be any different than other complex systems. The government routinely specifies the size, shape, and functionality of the things they purchase.
The military for example, specifies that MREs must be a certain size, a certain weight, and have a certain number of calories. Companies who complain that they must be allowed to "innovate" are laughed at.
Police departments specify that their cars must have very specific performance characteristics. Companies that say "we can't be forced to alter the product we already make" are similarly laughed at.
Why is software any different? Is it just because there is currently a monopoly?
Part of the problem I think is that software hasn't been a real priority as far as purchasing goes in the past. In my experience, software purchases are made at lower levels of management. There, decisions are made based on what can be bought at CompUSA. It's no wonder Microsoft Office ends up on everybody's machines.
Perhaps if the BSA cracks down on the government a little, they'll see the benefit in providing better guidance to those who make software purchases. Perhaps that will finally drive those purchases away from Microsoft's monopoly.
How do you not ask questions -and- learn more?
If you constantly ask question like:
"teach me how to hack?"
"how do I break into windows?"
"do you have any zero-day exploits?"
They'll think you're stupid. You'll learn nothing. You see, anything is better than nothing.
If you just watch what they are already doing, you *will* learn something. Obviously, if you miss something you can ask "What was that?" They'll answer those questions. Just don't be an annoying little leach.
but if you can't express these ideas to people who don't already know most of what you're talking about, you're taking a lot of chances on somebody recognizing your genius.
I suspect these people who failed to express their ideas to you had very little respect for you and held you in such low regard as to be completely unconcerned with whether or not you recognized their genius.
I also suspect you'd have a similar experience if you asked a brain surgeon "how do you make it go?"
That said, this is not intended as a flame. I simply wanted to point out my own experience. I think some people can be quite articulate - and also very choosy about whom they articulate to. Once I stopped asking stupid questions, I found I was no longer seen as stupid and I ended up learning a lot more.
Or to put it another way: "it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt" -- Mark Twain
Identify where the missiles are coming from and bomb it, or send fighters down a parallel path
Yes definitely. But you know, if it goes as planned the aircraft are already on their way home by the time the first of the missiles are spotted. They're all launched at pretty much the same time, and remember these are large cruise missiles we're talking about here.
I'm a poor network adm who was literally thrown into the job
The fact that you have a pulse means that you are already ahead of many companies.
The fact that you are highly motivated puts you up another knotch.
that carrier would have at last a full flight wing in the air, as well as being dead center of its carrier group. Any hostile trying to take out the carrier would have to go through a ring of aircraft - including AWACS with downward looking radar that doesn't really care if you're skimming the wave tops - followed by a ring of destroyers and cruisers. All fully armed with sea-to-air missiles and AEGIS anti-missile guns.
That's a pretty good summary of a basic fleet air defense. I think it's worth mentioning how the Soviet's actually planned to get through all that defense though.
The strategy is called a rollback. Basically, if you fire a lot missiles at an air defense system, each one will be intercepted a little closer to the target than the one before it. Slowly, the defenses are rolled back until missiles start getting through.
There's no way to stop a rollback. All Aegis or a good CWIS do is increase the number of missles required to roll the defenses back, or decrease the intercept range reduction from each missile. At some point, obviously, it would get too expensive (each cruise missile costs nearly 1mil) to fire that many - but it is always possible.
Other factors are fighter cover. The phoenix was designed to kill the bombers before they could launch (each backfire bomber destroyed = 3 cruise missiles). Submarines are a big factor. A submarine strike against one or two of the air defense cruisers (not the carrier itself) coordinated with the air strike is very effective.
Of course, the carrier group has its own subs to hunt the enemy subs. And the bombers can bring fighters to cover them. Offensive and defensive measures swing back and forth like that.
On top of that is the tactical use of all these weapons. When playing Harpoon, I used to like to feign an attack from one direction with a barrage launched by, say an Oscar submarine. Then I'd give the carrier taskforce just enough time to redeploy a couple of cruisers to that side and I'd hit them from the other side with a combined attack by bombers and subs.
If you're willing to spend the cash, it's really not all that hard to kill a single carrier. Of course, the bombers themselves need a large airbase - and that will be destroyed by the airforce right away... I could go on but you get the idea.
Thanks for the tip. I like it so far. For some reason, whenever I upload files with the web interface (using Opera) they are corrupted - but mapping the drive works great.
I keep all the porn in a seperate directory. That seems to work pretty well.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I want to show that link to anyone. I suspect many people will be satisfied by this:
the probability that the disease is present [A] if the test result is negative [~B] (i.e., the probability that a negative test result will be a false negative) = 0.0005
In other words, the test does a good job of identifying the innocent - or so it would seem.
the BSA shows up *with* the cops
Do you have any documentation of that? Because I find it hard to believe.
MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs
The problem with this and all automated law enforcement schemes, be they traffic cameras or facial recognition, is that they create a substantial assumption of guilt that is almost impossible to refute. "The computer says you're guilty, so you must be"
People find it hard to believe a system that is actually catching lawbreakers can make a mistake, until the mistake lands *them* in trouble.
and I scared him off with my katana.
don't listen to those other replies. I think u did a good thing.
my .3006 will scare you
an M-1?
[sniker]did he offend you?
Let's examine the thread so far:
night_flyer said: Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
and in response you say: GUN: Used for killing things.
[ducks as night_flyer's point zooms over your head]
We are talking about responsibility, but if you want to talk about gun control: fyi, it is often the threat of being killed that prevents others from doing the killing in the first place.
We run a web interface to a com object of MS Word/Excel
You got a license for that buddy?
Seriously, if the documentation for your setup is available I'd like to take a look at it.
on Earth, when you say "south", and that's it, nobody questions your reference point.
I may come off as a little impatient today. I'm sorry - it's not your fault. But I have to ask: how old are you? Are you really so naïve that you believe no one has or would ever question our designation of N/S? As an example, what we call North the Egyptians called South, because their reference was the Nile. People always disagree over silly things like this. So, of course we have to agree on a reference point. But my whole point is that you said it is possible to establish reference points - even in space.
To put it another way - just because there is no up or down doesn't mean you're lost.
Is there some sort of Force or galactic polls that give people in space a way to dissern North from South, if they even exist in space?
Is that a joke? You tell direction in space the same way you do on the Earth. Pick a reference point and orientation and derive whatever cardinal directions you need from that.
We could be anywhere in the (our) galaxy and if we agreed to face the direction of rotation, aligned with the plane of the galaxy, with the center of the galaxy 90 degrees to our left - north would be up and south would be down. Anywhere in the galaxy. If I told you to meet me 50K lt/yrs from the South Pole you could do it. Well, maybe someone smarter than you could do it.
The same idea works in the solar system. I suggest you download orbiter and play with it. Then maybe you'll understand these things.
Here's the first example that comes to mind: There's a Mitsubishi commercial where the guy meets a girl in a parking garage. She thinks he's cool as long as she also thinks he owns the Mitsubishi car. The message: don't miss out on sex with beautiful women - buy a Mitsubishi today! And yet they tell me nothing about the car (price, performance, safety, etc) I'm just supposed to buy it so I can have sex. What bullshit!
That's funny. I actually looked it up. Here's what dictionary.com said:
Trillion:
1. The cardinal number equal to 10^12.
2. Chiefly British. The cardinal number equal to 10^18.
I did not know that! I guess we'll call that "a space probe crashes into a planet accident waiting to happen"
I don't think so. Please correct me if I'm wrong here:
1000/1,000,000,000,000
thousand per trillion
divided by 1000 (lose 3 zeros)
1/1,000,000,000
one (part) per billion
Take head my son, Google itself holds the answer to this and many questions.
I'm seriously considering founding a religion based around google.
btw, rather than screw with registry settings to make IE conform, may I suggest you use Opera. It comes pre-configured to search google and many others. I use Opera with Javascript etc. turned off and only load IE when I find a page the requires that stuff. That system seems to work well.
LOAD?
Holy cow, I haven't seen those commands in a while!
I have to agree - and offer as evidence the jokes *everyone* makes about the instability of windows. The sheeple know their software sucks and they absolutely do not care. No matter what Microsoft does, the majority of people will continue to use it for the foreseeable future.
MS doesn't have to worry about PR - and god does that hurt to say
other words, you can put your MP3 on our server, but you must give the CD to our corporate librarian to file with the rest of the "licenses".
But I don't have the CD because I just downlo... ooohhh!
There have been many previous simulations of nuclear explosions, only they were limited to 2d plots of data
That's right. They were also only simulations of the first few miliseconds of the detonation IIRC.