Yes on both counts. I'd say WinFS has utility, but not like MS is making it out. By far the majority of users just don't have enough documents to make WinFS have significance. Even most of my users, many of whom are nearly computer illiterate, create directory hierarchies to sort their documents.
The place that I see WinFS as being useful is on file servers. You have a lot of documents created by a lot of people. You don't necessarily know someone else's filing strategy, so this would really speed up finding content.
If they have a WinFS client that can look up against a server attribute database, then it will find a business market use. Otherwise, I really think it will flop.
Going from 9x to an NT based platform is a worthy upgrade. Going from 2K to XP gives you nothing, as a business user. It takes away something though: you need a faster processor, more HD space, and more RAM.
Applications that are targetted at businesses are likely to continue running on 2k/XP for a long time. To not do so will weaken their market position, because their competition probably *will* support the more common business platforms.
So far, in my software travels, I have found one necessary business application that didn't work right on NT4. That was because the developer decided to use.NET for their client app, and it just isn't working right on NT4. As a result, *many* of their customers do not want to update past the revision that they're on. That revision is now two major releases behind, but the vendor still has to support it because of NT4 customer base. You'll also notice that almost every piece of add-on hardware that is marketed to businesses still has NT4 driver support.
BTW - NT4 was released in July 1996, which makes it 9 years old.
Of course, you're right. They should and *do* have the right to do any of those things with the software they develop. If they want to tell you that to run it you need a TCPA based machine with a "secure path" monitor, a Hitachi hard drive, no floppy, and only Toshiba optical drives, they could do that. This is the way it should be.
At the same time, if I find a way around it for the copy that I've purchased, then it should also be tough for them. I would consider that using the software the way I want to, and also Fair Use.
I think it's pretty dumb that companies waste so many resources trying to stop such things, but it's their money. When a company does things like that, I just stop purchasing from them. It doesn't entitle me to acquire their product illicilly, but I also don't have to use their product.
I don't buy RIAA member CDs, MPAA movies, go to mainstream theaters, purchase Microsoft software, or even pay for television. If more people would actually follow what they preach, you can bet that these sorts of practices wouldn't happen. It wouldn't be profitable to continue!
Hehe, of course at this point that might serve to make sure a lot of desktops are never upgraded past Win2K/XP.
I know that I have no plans to upgrade my users to Longhorn, and I plan to keep it that way. If MS and/or Dell removes that choice for me, then I look for another vendor, buy some XP licenses, or migrate to Linux/BSD. I would prefer that last option, since it makes my life easier for administration purposes.
VNC has a lot of variants out there. I actually deployed a version of UltraVNC ( http://ultravnc.sourceforge.net/ ) that doesn't have a tray icon. It never popped anything up on connection. Used in combination with a nifty script that I found, called FastPush, I can install VNC remotely, have no icon and no notifications, and have it start and run as a service.
It's quite useful, as I don't have to install it on each machine, and I can just script install and pop up vncviewer when I need to remote connect to a machine.
I remember when backoriface came out. I thought it was really useful to those of us that wanted MS SMS style functions, but didn't want the price tag. Other tools came out that are much more useful, though, like the SysInternals tools and VNC.
I've heard good things about the Pacific North-West, and I personally rather like rural areas in the North-East. From what I saw of it, getting a bit inland in Maryland, and even the little bit of Delaware that there is, were both really nice. I imagine those two are a bit expensive at this point, unfortunately. I was in Boulder, CO for a little while. That area looks perfectly fine, even if it is city-ish. I was considering moving out to the Colorado Springs area for a little while, but decided I liked working in tech and still wanted to do a bit more school. The people I've known from WA and NM both loved it there, but ended up staying here, in MA, after college.
I have some family in the hill down in North Carolina; they recommend that we don't visit, and that if we do, we go straight there. From the people I know from that area, it seems that the closer to the Atlantic you get, the more sane the area is. Except for Florida; there isn't anyone sane that lives there.;-)
I'll definitely give you a lot of that for NYC. It's an odd city in a lot of ways. As much as many people hated Giuliani, he cleaned the City up rather well. The majority of my animosity towards it comes from annoying bastards moving into rural areas from the City, and from Cuomo fucking everyone over to give the majority of the State budget to the City. Damn, I hated that asshole. It's one of the few cities that I don't mind visiting on occasion.
I'll confirm the football/sports bullshit in school, too. If you were up in the Catskills then you probably went through where I grew up. I was over towards Ellenville, and a bit north of Middletown, in the northwest corner of Orange County. It was still Hudson Valley, but only barely. Went through school at Valley Central, which, despite what I hear it is now, used to be an incredibly good school system. They still ended up putting like 45% of their budget into sports, though.
For myself, I'll take light suburb/rural over urban any day. I've lived in all of 'em except for the deep rural, six hours to the nearest population center, no gas within twenty miles, type places. I just find living in, and usually (but not always) anywhere near, most cities to suck. Driving is annoying, people don't talk as much, there's a lot of rudeness, prices are high, etc.
As for crime in NYC, yeah, just don't get on the PATH or you'll find all that missing crime.:P
You know, you're really talking out of your ass. I've been through rural areas all along the east coast. I can't say that much of it bears any resemblance to what you're saying, nor does the research that I've done, and reports that I've seen. Since the research is trivial to look up on Google, I'll share my personal experiences.
I grew up in a rural area in New York. I take vacations to a rural area in the Adairondacks, and half my family lives in rural New Jersey and rural Pennsylvania. Many of my friends grew up in rural areas, such as Kansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Maine. I also know quite a few people from urban areas, or that live in urban areas.
The area I grew up in was about an hour and a half from NYC, and the same from Albany. The drug problem consisted of stoners, there wasn't much trouble with drinking, there was one murder in the area in ten years. Very little violent crime of any type, no gang problems, and good schools. This started to change when people from NYC started to move there in larger numbers. There began to be real gang problems in the small city thirty minutes from me (that still sent some kids to my school district, though). Drug problems started to get noticed, and we had our first murder in a long time. Even in that city, most of the crime was a result of NYC bringing former mental patients, some shelters, and a prison into the area.
Drug problems are *most* common in urban areas, and are also a problem in some Mid-West rural areas. Most rural areas have weed, but they're light on much else. Drinking is a substantially larger problem than drugs in any rural area that I've been near. You're judging all rural areas based on problems of a few of them. There is a lot more to the country than the South or the Mid-West, and not all of those areas are like you're talking about.
Also, any of the rural areas that I've been in, around, or had acquaintances from, did not have any problems with people that weren't white. I have honestly seen more racism in cities than I have in rural America. I know this is not as true in many Southern rural areas, but I haven't lived there.
From what I see, people in rural areas are leary of *any* new people. As soon as you're demonstrated to be decent, nobody cares what you look like. They'll get used to you no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you're from. Well, so long as you aren't an asshat.
The only large prejudice that I've seen is a strong dislike of city people. This doesn't surprise me, considering how many people move from the city, and then want all the city amenities. You'll often see a rise in gated communities, developments, cookie-cutter bullshit, stupidy in schools, drugs, and other things. They tend to bring the city with them. Of course, this isn't true of *all* people that emmigrate from a city, but that is what rural types have started to expect of such people. Again, show yourself to not be of that all too typical mold, and people aren't going to have a problem with you.
Most people that live in a rural area do it on purpose. They don't *want* it like the city, and they aren't going to like anything that changes that. If you move into a rural area and start trying to make it into the city, expect to get shit on. If you go there with an attitude like yours, expect to be swimming in that shit.
Right now I live in an area that's part way between light suburb and rural. I'm only about ten minutes from a decently large city, and about fourty-five minutes from Boston. Real estate here is still more than I'd like, but not horrific. I can walk or ride a bike at any hour, the schools are pretty good, I can get good broadband, cable TV, there's very little crime, very little by way of a drug problem, and I'm not far from whatever I want. I have to drive about ten minutes for most anything, but whatever, it's only ten minutes.
They could definitely be misleading in that they do include *all* associated personnel, and not just designated combat infantry. I tried to find better numbers directly from DoD or the US Army, but Global Security was the best I found.
30,000 still sounds low to me, but, then again, there have been a lot of cuts in allowed personnel. Do you know of a better source that I could look at? I like to have the best info I can get my hands on!
What is this 30,000 number? Is that your total for just Army infantry divisions? Just the 1st, 2nd and 25th IDs together are over 46,000 soldiers. That leaves out a whole lot of other infrantry groups, like the nearly the entire Army National Guard.
The current troop numbers are 1,415,600 active soldiers across all branches, 456,800 in Guard forces, 404,100 in Reserve, for a total of 2,276,500 soldiers. The US Army alone includes 1,067,400 soldiers! (These numbers are for FY2005 - referenced from globalsecurity.org)
The.223 is really a.222 round, and called what it is for the reason that you remember. The 1:9 barrel twist was a compromise milling. The original design for the AR-15 used 1:12, and the NATO cartridge design uses 1:7. You should be able to fire either the.223 or the 5.56 NATO without much trouble, except having the clean it more often if you're using the.223 rounds.
Actually, you're wrong on all counts. Well, except for the advisory popping up, probably.
Point 1: What point are you calling crap, anyway? Even according to your link, the AR-15 fired the.223 Remington and the modern M-16 fires the 5.56mm NATO, which is the same as.223 Remington except for the bullet composition and powder chemistry. That's sort of exactly what I was saying. That page doesn't even mention the M-4 except as chambering the same rounds, but the M-16 and the M-4 are extremely compatible for a reason.
As far as the M-4 based on the M-16/AR-15 platform, in the other post *you* made on the topic, you even state the M-4 is derived from the M-16.
Point 2: As pointed out in posts that were submitted before yours, the Mauser Karabiner 98k does, in fact, fire the 5.56mm NATO round, as requested by the Israeli Defense Forces who continued production of the rifle. That was in the 1950s. The original, and no longer really used, Kar98k was the 7.92mm round. Really, only collectors want the older weapon, considering the newer one uses a very standard and easily obtained round (read: cheap). From Winchester: 8x57 = 23.42$/box of 20,.308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) = 13.38$/box of 20. Looks like using the older chambering is a *lot* more expensive, and also happens to be less accurate.
Point 3: The three shot burst is the most commonly used variant of the M-16. The original AR-15, and a few variants, did do full auto; that was decided against to preserve ammunition, help accuracy, and because it just doesn't work well on the platform. A quick check would've also shown you that the newer M-4 rifle also uses Safe/Semi/3 shot, and that the full auto version of both platforms is only used by special forces groups.
Who gives a damn about karma; you might do better if you didn't mention it in most posts that you make. Besides, you're critisizing someone for leaving out low production modifications of platforms, or versions that haven't been used for 40+ years, or for having more accurate data than you.
The original German design used a 7.92mm round, but it was converted to use 7.62 NATO by the Israelis. Most of them still in use today are of the later Israeli design.
5.56x45 is designated as STANAG 4172. That is the current standard round for NATO forces. Many weapons have been moved to use it as their normal round after it was accepted in the 70s as the NATO standard rifle round.
They started off trying to chamber a.222 cartridge, but decided on a.223 in the final product. The dimensions are the same, but the bullet and the powder are different. This meant they needed to remill the barrel to have a different rifling to have optimum accuracy and distance.
They had problems in the initial use of the.223 with different powder. It had a higher rate of fire and tended to cause faster wear and a buildup that resulted in jamming. They resolved it with the different rifling and a switch to another powder composition. That round was later classified as the standard 5.56x45 NATO round.
The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a.223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.
The M2 is a retired weapon, and pretty much has been since the 60s. The AR15/M16 was adopted to replace it then. It wasn't really accepted until the 80s, however.
The 5.56mm NATO round is also used by the Steyr AUG, FN FNC, British L85, FAMAS F1, HK23/53, the Israeli SAW and TAR21, several Berettas, and the standard police rifle (Remington 7615). There are quite a few more than those, though, these are just popular.
The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.
The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto. One of the major design goals of the platform was penetration of combat helmets at range. It was designed to kill, like most other modern firearms. The general exception to that rule is for things like PDWs, where the goal is defense of wielder. They will still kill very effectively, but you're aiming a lot less.
There are quite a few. Pro/ENGINEER, LinuxCAD, SolidWorks, VariCAD, CYCAS. MicroStation is supposed to have a Linux port. Older AutoCAD versions will run on UNIX. There are a few VHDL and VLSI design systems that will run on Linux/UNIX (Alliance and Xilinx). ARCAD and VARKON are two others.
This is true, Autodesk doesn't make a Linux port. However, a lot of CAD/CAM work is done on UNIX, because you don't want to have your OS crash and burn randomly when you're milling hundreds of parts a minute on a 250,000$ machine.
This is partly because Microsoft decided to have the format reflow when you change printer drivers. You'll occasionally find that a document will look different depending on what the last printer you used was.
The ISP would only see that there was encrypted traffic going out to a lot of other addresses. They couldn't really tell for sure what it was. They could make such things against policy, but that would make a lot of business users really upset.
As for the OS, that's hard to say without seeing how it ends up being implemented. Servers need to be able to forward traffic for a lot of reasons. Things like virtualization, proxy gateways, content filters, cache proxies, etc, will still need to work. That means they can't just outright stop you from being able to do packet forwarding.
So, if there exists a way around signed application code execution, you can write a proxy that will do the layering for you. As so many people have pointed out, there is always a way. This just makes them have less control when that way is discovered, and puts them in a worse position than they started.
Under this scheme, ISPs lose because they can't prioritize different types of traffic since it's all going through a VPN style layer. The people forcing the DRM lose, because now nobody can see the traffic unless you're the destination. You could probably even use the signing hardware to make sure that only the real destination machine can decrypt the data!
Or you could just use a DRM-crippled computer as a gateway and put another layer over the internet, bypassing all the DRM garbage. Think of the way that something like 6in4 works to layer IPv6 over IPv4 networks.
I'll definitely agree with you that on a graphics workstation, you choose differently. The ATI FireGL line is quite good for both hardware and software. Servers have used ATI for onboard graphics for a long time, although they occasionally use chipset integrated graphics now. Quality control for the nVidia Quadro is much better than for their GeForce line, but you're still buying from a VAR instead of direct.
It doesn't matter so much what you choose for anything other than gaming or graphics workstation. As long as it's reliable and can push a good resolution with clarity, it should be fine.
The RMA situation is certainly quite obnoxious, but you're hopefully not going to lose business because you spend an extra 10$ or 50$ to choose a reliable vendor. On a personal machine, then maybe the 50$ is a worry because it makes you charge 1015$ instead of 965$, or whatnot.
Myself... I choose the nVidia kit over ATI simply because ATI still hasn't learned to put together quality software to back up their hardware. If they get their heads on straight and start producing software on par with their hardware, then I'll put them up as a competitive option rather than a vendor to not even consider. Either way, it's hard to do well being a small OEM...
The machines that I build or purchase only come with ATI if I don't have another choice. The only ATI hardware that I run right now is the integrated Rage chipsets on my UltraSPARC workstations, and similar on the Dell PowerEdges. I don't care about graphics on those machines, and the only hardware related crash I've had (so far) has been a result of the ATI driver for my little PowerEdge 1400SC. The larger PowerEdges have been fine with whatever ATI chipset runs them.
As previously pointed out, the nVidia equivalent to the FireGL is called the Quadro. It's been out for several years now and is extremely well supported.
nVidia also has the most complete and accelerated OpenGL implementation on the market. They have much more stable drivers than ATI, and the actually support their previous generation hardware. They don't tend to do massively bloated "we require 128MB RAM for our driver" type crap.
When ATI gets around to releasing a driver that actually loads on a new kernel, it doesn't work right anyway. nVidia gets you the advantage of as fast or faster performance on Linux, compared to Windows.
Also, why would you be needing a professional graphics card for a workstation. Perhaps you're using that "workstation" to do work instead of play games. I use my workstation to do programming and system/network administration. Why do I need a FireGL?
Every few years, I'll risk throwing money at an ATI product. I've been burned every single time that I've done it, dating back to my mach32 VLB card. They drop driver support, half-ass what they do have, but at least they've stopped making shoddy hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes on both counts. I'd say WinFS has utility, but not like MS is making it out. By far the majority of users just don't have enough documents to make WinFS have significance. Even most of my users, many of whom are nearly computer illiterate, create directory hierarchies to sort their documents.
The place that I see WinFS as being useful is on file servers. You have a lot of documents created by a lot of people. You don't necessarily know someone else's filing strategy, so this would really speed up finding content.
If they have a WinFS client that can look up against a server attribute database, then it will find a business market use. Otherwise, I really think it will flop.
Going from 9x to an NT based platform is a worthy upgrade. Going from 2K to XP gives you nothing, as a business user. It takes away something though: you need a faster processor, more HD space, and more RAM.
.NET for their client app, and it just isn't working right on NT4. As a result, *many* of their customers do not want to update past the revision that they're on. That revision is now two major releases behind, but the vendor still has to support it because of NT4 customer base. You'll also notice that almost every piece of add-on hardware that is marketed to businesses still has NT4 driver support.
Applications that are targetted at businesses are likely to continue running on 2k/XP for a long time. To not do so will weaken their market position, because their competition probably *will* support the more common business platforms.
So far, in my software travels, I have found one necessary business application that didn't work right on NT4. That was because the developer decided to use
BTW - NT4 was released in July 1996, which makes it 9 years old.
Of course, you're right. They should and *do* have the right to do any of those things with the software they develop. If they want to tell you that to run it you need a TCPA based machine with a "secure path" monitor, a Hitachi hard drive, no floppy, and only Toshiba optical drives, they could do that. This is the way it should be.
At the same time, if I find a way around it for the copy that I've purchased, then it should also be tough for them. I would consider that using the software the way I want to, and also Fair Use.
I think it's pretty dumb that companies waste so many resources trying to stop such things, but it's their money. When a company does things like that, I just stop purchasing from them. It doesn't entitle me to acquire their product illicilly, but I also don't have to use their product.
I don't buy RIAA member CDs, MPAA movies, go to mainstream theaters, purchase Microsoft software, or even pay for television. If more people would actually follow what they preach, you can bet that these sorts of practices wouldn't happen. It wouldn't be profitable to continue!
Hehe, of course at this point that might serve to make sure a lot of desktops are never upgraded past Win2K/XP.
I know that I have no plans to upgrade my users to Longhorn, and I plan to keep it that way. If MS and/or Dell removes that choice for me, then I look for another vendor, buy some XP licenses, or migrate to Linux/BSD. I would prefer that last option, since it makes my life easier for administration purposes.
VNC has a lot of variants out there. I actually deployed a version of UltraVNC ( http://ultravnc.sourceforge.net/ ) that doesn't have a tray icon. It never popped anything up on connection. Used in combination with a nifty script that I found, called FastPush, I can install VNC remotely, have no icon and no notifications, and have it start and run as a service.
It's quite useful, as I don't have to install it on each machine, and I can just script install and pop up vncviewer when I need to remote connect to a machine.
I remember when backoriface came out. I thought it was really useful to those of us that wanted MS SMS style functions, but didn't want the price tag. Other tools came out that are much more useful, though, like the SysInternals tools and VNC.
I've heard good things about the Pacific North-West, and I personally rather like rural areas in the North-East. From what I saw of it, getting a bit inland in Maryland, and even the little bit of Delaware that there is, were both really nice. I imagine those two are a bit expensive at this point, unfortunately. I was in Boulder, CO for a little while. That area looks perfectly fine, even if it is city-ish. I was considering moving out to the Colorado Springs area for a little while, but decided I liked working in tech and still wanted to do a bit more school. The people I've known from WA and NM both loved it there, but ended up staying here, in MA, after college.
;-)
I have some family in the hill down in North Carolina; they recommend that we don't visit, and that if we do, we go straight there. From the people I know from that area, it seems that the closer to the Atlantic you get, the more sane the area is. Except for Florida; there isn't anyone sane that lives there.
I'll definitely give you a lot of that for NYC. It's an odd city in a lot of ways. As much as many people hated Giuliani, he cleaned the City up rather well. The majority of my animosity towards it comes from annoying bastards moving into rural areas from the City, and from Cuomo fucking everyone over to give the majority of the State budget to the City. Damn, I hated that asshole. It's one of the few cities that I don't mind visiting on occasion.
:P
I'll confirm the football/sports bullshit in school, too. If you were up in the Catskills then you probably went through where I grew up. I was over towards Ellenville, and a bit north of Middletown, in the northwest corner of Orange County. It was still Hudson Valley, but only barely. Went through school at Valley Central, which, despite what I hear it is now, used to be an incredibly good school system. They still ended up putting like 45% of their budget into sports, though.
For myself, I'll take light suburb/rural over urban any day. I've lived in all of 'em except for the deep rural, six hours to the nearest population center, no gas within twenty miles, type places. I just find living in, and usually (but not always) anywhere near, most cities to suck. Driving is annoying, people don't talk as much, there's a lot of rudeness, prices are high, etc.
As for crime in NYC, yeah, just don't get on the PATH or you'll find all that missing crime.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by being behind the times? Do you mean internet access, job availability, or what?
You know, you're really talking out of your ass. I've been through rural areas all along the east coast. I can't say that much of it bears any resemblance to what you're saying, nor does the research that I've done, and reports that I've seen. Since the research is trivial to look up on Google, I'll share my personal experiences.
I grew up in a rural area in New York. I take vacations to a rural area in the Adairondacks, and half my family lives in rural New Jersey and rural Pennsylvania. Many of my friends grew up in rural areas, such as Kansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Maine. I also know quite a few people from urban areas, or that live in urban areas.
The area I grew up in was about an hour and a half from NYC, and the same from Albany. The drug problem consisted of stoners, there wasn't much trouble with drinking, there was one murder in the area in ten years. Very little violent crime of any type, no gang problems, and good schools. This started to change when people from NYC started to move there in larger numbers. There began to be real gang problems in the small city thirty minutes from me (that still sent some kids to my school district, though). Drug problems started to get noticed, and we had our first murder in a long time. Even in that city, most of the crime was a result of NYC bringing former mental patients, some shelters, and a prison into the area.
Drug problems are *most* common in urban areas, and are also a problem in some Mid-West rural areas. Most rural areas have weed, but they're light on much else. Drinking is a substantially larger problem than drugs in any rural area that I've been near. You're judging all rural areas based on problems of a few of them. There is a lot more to the country than the South or the Mid-West, and not all of those areas are like you're talking about.
Also, any of the rural areas that I've been in, around, or had acquaintances from, did not have any problems with people that weren't white. I have honestly seen more racism in cities than I have in rural America. I know this is not as true in many Southern rural areas, but I haven't lived there.
From what I see, people in rural areas are leary of *any* new people. As soon as you're demonstrated to be decent, nobody cares what you look like. They'll get used to you no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you're from. Well, so long as you aren't an asshat.
The only large prejudice that I've seen is a strong dislike of city people. This doesn't surprise me, considering how many people move from the city, and then want all the city amenities. You'll often see a rise in gated communities, developments, cookie-cutter bullshit, stupidy in schools, drugs, and other things. They tend to bring the city with them. Of course, this isn't true of *all* people that emmigrate from a city, but that is what rural types have started to expect of such people. Again, show yourself to not be of that all too typical mold, and people aren't going to have a problem with you.
Most people that live in a rural area do it on purpose. They don't *want* it like the city, and they aren't going to like anything that changes that. If you move into a rural area and start trying to make it into the city, expect to get shit on. If you go there with an attitude like yours, expect to be swimming in that shit.
Right now I live in an area that's part way between light suburb and rural. I'm only about ten minutes from a decently large city, and about fourty-five minutes from Boston. Real estate here is still more than I'd like, but not horrific. I can walk or ride a bike at any hour, the schools are pretty good, I can get good broadband, cable TV, there's very little crime, very little by way of a drug problem, and I'm not far from whatever I want. I have to drive about ten minutes for most anything, but whatever, it's only ten minutes.
The numbers that I had came from:y /index.html
- strength.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/arm
and from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end
They could definitely be misleading in that they do include *all* associated personnel, and not just designated combat infantry. I tried to find better numbers directly from DoD or the US Army, but Global Security was the best I found.
30,000 still sounds low to me, but, then again, there have been a lot of cuts in allowed personnel. Do you know of a better source that I could look at? I like to have the best info I can get my hands on!
What is this 30,000 number? Is that your total for just Army infantry divisions? Just the 1st, 2nd and 25th IDs together are over 46,000 soldiers. That leaves out a whole lot of other infrantry groups, like the nearly the entire Army National Guard.
The current troop numbers are 1,415,600 active soldiers across all branches, 456,800 in Guard forces, 404,100 in Reserve, for a total of 2,276,500 soldiers. The US Army alone includes 1,067,400 soldiers! (These numbers are for FY2005 - referenced from globalsecurity.org)
The .223 is really a .222 round, and called what it is for the reason that you remember. The 1:9 barrel twist was a compromise milling. The original design for the AR-15 used 1:12, and the NATO cartridge design uses 1:7. You should be able to fire either the .223 or the 5.56 NATO without much trouble, except having the clean it more often if you're using the .223 rounds.
Actually, you're wrong on all counts. Well, except for the advisory popping up, probably.
.223 Remington and the modern M-16 fires the 5.56mm NATO, which is the same as .223 Remington except for the bullet composition and powder chemistry. That's sort of exactly what I was saying. That page doesn't even mention the M-4 except as chambering the same rounds, but the M-16 and the M-4 are extremely compatible for a reason.
.308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) = 13.38$/box of 20. Looks like using the older chambering is a *lot* more expensive, and also happens to be less accurate.
Point 1: What point are you calling crap, anyway? Even according to your link, the AR-15 fired the
As far as the M-4 based on the M-16/AR-15 platform, in the other post *you* made on the topic, you even state the M-4 is derived from the M-16.
Point 2: As pointed out in posts that were submitted before yours, the Mauser Karabiner 98k does, in fact, fire the 5.56mm NATO round, as requested by the Israeli Defense Forces who continued production of the rifle. That was in the 1950s. The original, and no longer really used, Kar98k was the 7.92mm round. Really, only collectors want the older weapon, considering the newer one uses a very standard and easily obtained round (read: cheap). From Winchester: 8x57 = 23.42$/box of 20,
Point 3: The three shot burst is the most commonly used variant of the M-16. The original AR-15, and a few variants, did do full auto; that was decided against to preserve ammunition, help accuracy, and because it just doesn't work well on the platform. A quick check would've also shown you that the newer M-4 rifle also uses Safe/Semi/3 shot, and that the full auto version of both platforms is only used by special forces groups.
Who gives a damn about karma; you might do better if you didn't mention it in most posts that you make. Besides, you're critisizing someone for leaving out low production modifications of platforms, or versions that haven't been used for 40+ years, or for having more accurate data than you.
The original German design used a 7.92mm round, but it was converted to use 7.62 NATO by the Israelis. Most of them still in use today are of the later Israeli design.
5.56x45 is designated as STANAG 4172. That is the current standard round for NATO forces. Many weapons have been moved to use it as their normal round after it was accepted in the 70s as the NATO standard rifle round.
They started off trying to chamber a .222 cartridge, but decided on a .223 in the final product. The dimensions are the same, but the bullet and the powder are different. This meant they needed to remill the barrel to have a different rifling to have optimum accuracy and distance.
.223 with different powder. It had a higher rate of fire and tended to cause faster wear and a buildup that resulted in jamming. They resolved it with the different rifling and a switch to another powder composition. That round was later classified as the standard 5.56x45 NATO round.
They had problems in the initial use of the
The modern M16 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, while the previous generation (original AR15 platform) used a .223 caliber Remington round. The NATO round is a very standard round used in quite a few weapons. The newest weapon in wide use is actually the M4, which is also based on the AR15 platform.
The M2 is a retired weapon, and pretty much has been since the 60s. The AR15/M16 was adopted to replace it then. It wasn't really accepted until the 80s, however.
The 5.56mm NATO round is also used by the Steyr AUG, FN FNC, British L85, FAMAS F1, HK23/53, the Israeli SAW and TAR21, several Berettas, and the standard police rifle (Remington 7615). There are quite a few more than those, though, these are just popular.
The older 7.62mm NATO round was used in a lot of weapons, including the M14, M60, Kar-98k, and the Winchester model 70. It was very popular, as well.
The M16 isn't designed to maim, but they are easy to do this with. They are rather accurate, have a good range, and don't do full auto. One of the major design goals of the platform was penetration of combat helmets at range. It was designed to kill, like most other modern firearms. The general exception to that rule is for things like PDWs, where the goal is defense of wielder. They will still kill very effectively, but you're aiming a lot less.
There are quite a few. Pro/ENGINEER, LinuxCAD, SolidWorks, VariCAD, CYCAS. MicroStation is supposed to have a Linux port. Older AutoCAD versions will run on UNIX. There are a few VHDL and VLSI design systems that will run on Linux/UNIX (Alliance and Xilinx). ARCAD and VARKON are two others.
This is true, Autodesk doesn't make a Linux port. However, a lot of CAD/CAM work is done on UNIX, because you don't want to have your OS crash and burn randomly when you're milling hundreds of parts a minute on a 250,000$ machine.
This is partly because Microsoft decided to have the format reflow when you change printer drivers. You'll occasionally find that a document will look different depending on what the last printer you used was.
The ISP would only see that there was encrypted traffic going out to a lot of other addresses. They couldn't really tell for sure what it was. They could make such things against policy, but that would make a lot of business users really upset.
As for the OS, that's hard to say without seeing how it ends up being implemented. Servers need to be able to forward traffic for a lot of reasons. Things like virtualization, proxy gateways, content filters, cache proxies, etc, will still need to work. That means they can't just outright stop you from being able to do packet forwarding.
So, if there exists a way around signed application code execution, you can write a proxy that will do the layering for you. As so many people have pointed out, there is always a way. This just makes them have less control when that way is discovered, and puts them in a worse position than they started.
Under this scheme, ISPs lose because they can't prioritize different types of traffic since it's all going through a VPN style layer. The people forcing the DRM lose, because now nobody can see the traffic unless you're the destination. You could probably even use the signing hardware to make sure that only the real destination machine can decrypt the data!
Or you could just use a DRM-crippled computer as a gateway and put another layer over the internet, bypassing all the DRM garbage. Think of the way that something like 6in4 works to layer IPv6 over IPv4 networks.
I'll definitely agree with you that on a graphics workstation, you choose differently. The ATI FireGL line is quite good for both hardware and software. Servers have used ATI for onboard graphics for a long time, although they occasionally use chipset integrated graphics now. Quality control for the nVidia Quadro is much better than for their GeForce line, but you're still buying from a VAR instead of direct.
It doesn't matter so much what you choose for anything other than gaming or graphics workstation. As long as it's reliable and can push a good resolution with clarity, it should be fine.
The RMA situation is certainly quite obnoxious, but you're hopefully not going to lose business because you spend an extra 10$ or 50$ to choose a reliable vendor. On a personal machine, then maybe the 50$ is a worry because it makes you charge 1015$ instead of 965$, or whatnot.
Myself... I choose the nVidia kit over ATI simply because ATI still hasn't learned to put together quality software to back up their hardware. If they get their heads on straight and start producing software on par with their hardware, then I'll put them up as a competitive option rather than a vendor to not even consider. Either way, it's hard to do well being a small OEM...
The machines that I build or purchase only come with ATI if I don't have another choice. The only ATI hardware that I run right now is the integrated Rage chipsets on my UltraSPARC workstations, and similar on the Dell PowerEdges. I don't care about graphics on those machines, and the only hardware related crash I've had (so far) has been a result of the ATI driver for my little PowerEdge 1400SC. The larger PowerEdges have been fine with whatever ATI chipset runs them.
As previously pointed out, the nVidia equivalent to the FireGL is called the Quadro. It's been out for several years now and is extremely well supported.
nVidia also has the most complete and accelerated OpenGL implementation on the market. They have much more stable drivers than ATI, and the actually support their previous generation hardware. They don't tend to do massively bloated "we require 128MB RAM for our driver" type crap.
When ATI gets around to releasing a driver that actually loads on a new kernel, it doesn't work right anyway. nVidia gets you the advantage of as fast or faster performance on Linux, compared to Windows.
Also, why would you be needing a professional graphics card for a workstation. Perhaps you're using that "workstation" to do work instead of play games. I use my workstation to do programming and system/network administration. Why do I need a FireGL?
Every few years, I'll risk throwing money at an ATI product. I've been burned every single time that I've done it, dating back to my mach32 VLB card. They drop driver support, half-ass what they do have, but at least they've stopped making shoddy hardware.
Hm... File | Print. They're also not paperless, as you're required by Federal law to maintain certain things on paper.