One of the flying cars is in the flight museum at Boeing aircrafts facility near King county airport in Washington USA. In a society that values safety over nearly everything, where people make headlines for spilling hot coffee in their laps, flying cars like the ones produced in the late 60s (it wasn't mass production but there were team build prduction lines for a company in Brittain and I think one in California US). Absolute safety just isn't compatible with independent airborne transportation. There was a time, perhaps in the 60's when America was innovating rocketpacks. In the days when risk was considered a controllable factor and not a danger to be wiped from the earth general aviation could provide small airplanes to anyone with a middle class income. And no, I'm not Grandpa Simpson typing about "back in my day" I wasn't around in 61. Oh, and not be be even more of a wet blanket but the previous poster is wrong. The Moller sky car is neither street nor air legal. (And again, it ain't problems with technology that are causing the holdups... it's societal).
Yes, there IS an answer.
Hold people accountable for their actions. The young crip who uses a gun to modify the competitive environment is responsible for that murder, not the gun or the gun maker. And as much as Ms Fonda might disagree McDonald Douglas is responsible for creating extremely large bombers, the politicians who order those bombers used in war are responsible for the war, not McDonald Douglas.
Inanimate objects are not responsible, humans are and humans should be responsible for their own actions not the actions of others. Apportioning blame back up the chain (away from the crip to the guy who sold him the gun and the guy who sold him the gun etc), intentionally or not, releases the final actor in the chain from a portion of their responsibility. It's unethical IMHO.
Free advice here- find another job.
Do that first, and right away. There is no reason that you should allow yourself to be exploited like that. I have friends who do, who make a lot of money at it, and IMHO the money does not make them happy (their excuse is they wouldn't want to earn less, but imho they improperly value their own happiness in dollar terms as well as their own marketability).
Once you've done that, don't abandon your friends who remain there. Contact the National labor relations board at: http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/home/default.asp IA NAL but I don't believe your employer is acting legally and there can and should be consequences for that. All just my humble opinion, none of this is legal advice.
I've never regretted a computer buy. When I was a kid I pestered my mom into helping me buy a C64, it was my first computer. I had thought much earlier about trying to get a cheap sinclair or something but I waited a few years to save up for something better. As -soon- as I got it I thought back on 2-3 years of "waiting" and realized what I could have learned in that time. Sure, technology is getting better all of the time. That's not a reason to take yourself out of participation in the here and now, or to regret the powermac6100 gathering dust in the basement (anybody want an obso SE30 for cheap?)
the headlight bit of this story is absurd, dunno where they got that but if the original poster thinks that you will believe that HID headlights normally cost 3k to replace... they're either painfully ignorant or think that you are. They are expensive yes, and more energy efficient and far longer lived (and many many more advantages). Oh, and while I'm ranting, all the folks who think they should control what other people drive should... run their own lives first. Additional free advice: when driving at night look at the road and the right road edge, not directly into other peoples headlights;-) And finally, since my newest vehicle is 20 years old, no I do not have HID lights myself.
Not to undermine my engineering/geekiness here but... while she may be "prospective" (in terms of becoming GF.x or such) but most likely is not a "prospective female". Possibly depending on where you hang out.
"Without the marketing people the company can't sell whatever it is the engineers make."
That, is rediculous. Neither Mssr Hewlett nor Mssr Packard was a marketing person (or gave a damn for them) ditto all of the people who started the silicon revolution, products are -most- -often- sold by "non marketing" people. It is only in large corporations working mature markets that marketing professionals run sales and in my experience (WRQ, IMHO) a -lot- of medium and or non mature companies rush to employ professional marketing tactics simply so that they can appear large. No, the statement is totally on it's head. Engineers CAN (when lead by deceent management and forced by market conditions) sell stuff. Marketing people on the other hand very often cannot make stuff. Bk425
Wow, now slashdot is a gathering place for Aviation engineers. And here I thought it was just "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
'kay, so maybe a few of the folks here who seem to have been in on the design of every one of Airbus' airframes will tell us what caused them to go with absolutely no back up systems? Hmm? Is it just that they're French? Because as fun as it is to diss the French (who did, after all, bring us the renault) the rest of us are having some trouble believing that "Fly by wire" necessarily means "absolutely no backup, no cabin access to mechanical systems so shut up and enjoy this warm snail on your trip down". bk425 PS I can hear folks typing replies saying Airbus isn't french... think about what's been typed here: fly by wire = no backup. Hmmmm.
The fact that it is illegal doesn't mean that it does happen, either. Obviously being illegal disincentivizes most people from the behaviour. Most people I know have never seen a federal penitentiary and plan to keep it that way.
Criminalization also incentivizes people to combat the behaviour. For instance, if -I- knew of someone who told me a story like this, instead of posting flowery phrase about it on slashdot I would switch off the computer and phone the local state department office to see how these things are investigated. (As other have mentioned those stolen passports are property of the worlds most powerful government, not the alledgedly enslaved H1B worker).
http://travel.state.gov/passport_services.html
If you make outlandish or powerful claims, the onus is on YOU to support them. Not the rest of the folks in the forum.
Drone wars; not.
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"Battles by machines"- The classic image of drone wars (as other have pointed out)is machine on machine. There is -no- military power on the planet facing US "drones", even if you would apply that word to UAVs (I, and the military, would not).
"conventional military wisdom held that a war can't be won without...ground troops."- And the examples he sites weren't won. Kosovo is an ongoing police action and people here on slashdot still argue that we should lift the sanctions that were the negotiated end to Desert Storm. And just like Desert storm Enduring freeom -does- have "tremendous numbers" of ground soldiers, just not US ones (a strategy that could yet come back to haunt us).
"...a very different kind of fight. Early reports suggest..."- "Early reports" means -rumors-. This is a theater of war, information sources are rare or nonexistent. Basing a perspective on "early reports" is silly. "...hard to imagine a conflict more remote to...Americans," No, read your history. Ike/Nixon lied about body counts (all of the time) and toward the end of Vietnam started getting reporters away from the frontline. This is old hat, and it may be necessary if we accept winning a war as a US goal.
"technological arsenal that has devastated the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda networks with stunningly few U.S. military casualties"- Balderdash. Really, I understand we're all here because we share a fasination with technology but let's still try at to keep a -little- perspective. Our technology, including to a minor degree the spectacularly impressive though hardly drone like UAVs, has helped the militia fighters on the ground win this. But it is those militia, the same infighting badly organized peasants that held the Russian bear at bay for years, that did the early work on the ground (90% of the work on the ground mostly likely) and took the casualties for us. THEY are the ones that did this, not some low bandwidth flying camera platform with two tiny missiles under its wings.
"It seems only a matter of time before other countries developed their own surrogate weaponry, and the idea of the high-tech Drone War -- machines warring with one another -- moves to the next level." Huh? Since when did machine on machine war become "the next level" of Drone War?? That IS drone war, and we aren't there yet. Our cool, tiny little Unmanned planes aren't drones, and to the very limited degree that they can "fight", they're doing it against (backwords and poorly armed) humans, not drones. That is not a "drone war".
"...suggested that wars can't really be won in the conventional sense any longer; even the victors will suffer unacceptable losses." Oh, read a few more of Mr. Keegans books. -Every- war is followed by a small vocal group declaring it to horrific to ever happen again (every one). But remember the Japanese militaries distribution of punji sticks to civilians on the home island (with directions on poisoning them). Remember the fire bombing, the total annihaltion of all life, in Dresden and the ZERO effect that had on the Nazi war machine. Sorry to say it, but War isn't going to end because weapons become more effective. How did this idea of "Drone War" enter the public mind? Popular fiction like Star Wars... and it isn't called "To terrible to contemplate Wars in the Stars so lets hang out with Darth and sing Coombiaya" (no sp, sorry).
"A war without sacrifice is definitely a 21st century idea."- Seems to me it's a John Katz idea, even the stylized "war" in star wars shows sacrifice when humans die in waves of damage emanating from the warring drones (wich are after all only proxy humans). There is no war without sacrifice. The US taxpayer will feel the bite of those 4 million dollar cruise missiles (that we're running out of). The Afghani warlords feel it in the blood of their dying comrades.
"Why should citizens of any country hesitate to wage such a war if they have the machinery?" Because the machinery, just like B52s and B2s, is used to destroy the infrastructure that allows the construction of the machinery. Just like the US bombed the Ruhr Valley in WWII to end German war production (and a damn good plan it was), just like we cluster bombed the runway at Kandahar international airport and went after Al Quaidas communication network. People die when that happens, war -is- horrible, that's why countries don't wage war that isn't critical to their percieved self interest. Thanks for asking ; ) BK425 All of this is my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the flying cars is in the flight museum at Boeing aircrafts facility near King county airport in Washington USA.
In a society that values safety over nearly everything, where people make headlines for spilling hot coffee in their laps, flying cars like the ones produced in the late 60s (it wasn't mass production but there were team build prduction lines for a company in Brittain and I think one in California US).
Absolute safety just isn't compatible with independent airborne transportation. There was a time, perhaps in the 60's when America was innovating rocketpacks. In the days when risk was considered a controllable factor and not a danger to be wiped from the earth general aviation could provide small airplanes to anyone with a middle class income. And no, I'm not Grandpa Simpson typing about "back in my day" I wasn't around in 61.
Oh, and not be be even more of a wet blanket but the previous poster is wrong. The Moller sky car is neither street nor air legal. (And again, it ain't problems with technology that are causing the holdups... it's societal).
Woops sorry about the mis spelling. I did choos MD because of the Fonda reference... back then they -were- building the large bombers, no?
Yes, there IS an answer.
Hold people accountable for their actions. The young crip who uses a gun to modify the competitive environment is responsible for that murder, not the gun or the gun maker. And as much as Ms Fonda might disagree McDonald Douglas is responsible for creating extremely large bombers, the politicians who order those bombers used in war are responsible for the war, not McDonald Douglas.
Inanimate objects are not responsible, humans are and humans should be responsible for their own actions not the actions of others. Apportioning blame back up the chain (away from the crip to the guy who sold him the gun and the guy who sold him the gun etc), intentionally or not, releases the final actor in the chain from a portion of their responsibility. It's unethical IMHO.
Free advice here- find another job.A NAL but I don't believe your employer is acting legally and there can and should be consequences for that. All just my humble opinion, none of this is legal advice.
Do that first, and right away. There is no reason that you should allow yourself to be exploited like that. I have friends who do, who make a lot of money at it, and IMHO the money does not make them happy (their excuse is they wouldn't want to earn less, but imho they improperly value their own happiness in dollar terms as well as their own marketability).
Once you've done that, don't abandon your friends who remain there. Contact the National labor relations board at:
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/home/default.asp
I
I've never regretted a computer buy. When I was a kid I pestered my mom into helping me buy a C64, it was my first computer. I had thought much earlier about trying to get a cheap sinclair or something but I waited a few years to save up for something better. As -soon- as I got it I thought back on 2-3 years of "waiting" and realized what I could have learned in that time.
Sure, technology is getting better all of the time. That's not a reason to take yourself out of participation in the here and now, or to regret the powermac6100 gathering dust in the basement (anybody want an obso SE30 for cheap?)
the headlight bit of this story is absurd, dunno where they got that but if the original poster thinks that you will believe that HID headlights normally cost 3k to replace... they're either painfully ignorant or think that you are. They are expensive yes, and more energy efficient and far longer lived (and many many more advantages). ;-)
Oh, and while I'm ranting, all the folks who think they should control what other people drive should... run their own lives first.
Additional free advice: when driving at night look at the road and the right road edge, not directly into other peoples headlights
And finally, since my newest vehicle is 20 years old, no I do not have HID lights myself.
Not to undermine my engineering/geekiness here but... while she may be "prospective" (in terms of becoming GF.x or such) but most likely is not a "prospective female". Possibly depending on where you hang out.
"Without the marketing people the company can't sell whatever it is the engineers make."
That, is rediculous. Neither Mssr Hewlett nor Mssr Packard was a marketing person (or gave a damn for them) ditto all of the people who started the silicon revolution, products are -most- -often- sold by "non marketing" people. It is only in large corporations working mature markets that marketing professionals run sales and in my experience (WRQ, IMHO) a -lot- of medium and or non mature companies rush to employ professional marketing tactics simply so that they can appear large.
No, the statement is totally on it's head. Engineers CAN (when lead by deceent management and forced by market conditions) sell stuff. Marketing people on the other hand very often cannot make stuff. Bk425
Wow, now slashdot is a gathering place for Aviation engineers. And here I thought it was just "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
'kay, so maybe a few of the folks here who seem to have been in on the design of every one of Airbus' airframes will tell us what caused them to go with absolutely no back up systems? Hmm? Is it just that they're French? Because as fun as it is to diss the French (who did, after all, bring us the renault) the rest of us are having some trouble believing that "Fly by wire" necessarily means "absolutely no backup, no cabin access to mechanical systems so shut up and enjoy this warm snail on your trip down". bk425
PS I can hear folks typing replies saying Airbus isn't french... think about what's been typed here: fly by wire = no backup. Hmmmm.
Only subpeonas can't coerce you to reveal this data, other companies in the market are not an issue.
The fact that it is illegal doesn't mean that it does happen, either. Obviously being illegal disincentivizes most people from the behaviour. Most people I know have never seen a federal penitentiary and plan to keep it that way.
Criminalization also incentivizes people to combat the behaviour. For instance, if -I- knew of someone who told me a story like this, instead of posting flowery phrase about it on slashdot I would switch off the computer and phone the local state department office to see how these things are investigated. (As other have mentioned those stolen passports are property of the worlds most powerful government, not the alledgedly enslaved H1B worker).
http://travel.state.gov/passport_services.html
If you make outlandish or powerful claims, the onus is on YOU to support them. Not the rest of the folks in the forum.
"Battles by machines"- The classic image of drone wars (as other have pointed out)is machine on machine. There is -no- military power on the planet facing US "drones", even if you would apply that word to UAVs (I, and the military, would not). ...ground troops."- And the examples he sites weren't won. Kosovo is an ongoing police action and people here on slashdot still argue that we should lift the sanctions that were the negotiated end to Desert Storm. And just like Desert storm Enduring freeom -does- have "tremendous numbers" of ground soldiers, just not US ones (a strategy that could yet come back to haunt us).
...Americans," No, read your history. Ike/Nixon lied about body counts (all of the time) and toward the end of Vietnam started getting reporters away from the frontline. This is old hat, and it may be necessary if we accept winning a war as a US goal.
"conventional military wisdom held that a war can't be won without
"...a very different kind of fight. Early reports suggest..."- "Early reports" means -rumors-. This is a theater of war, information sources are rare or nonexistent. Basing a perspective on "early reports" is silly. "...hard to imagine a conflict more remote to
"technological arsenal that has devastated the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda networks with stunningly few U.S. military casualties"- Balderdash. Really, I understand we're all here because we share a fasination with technology but let's still try at to keep a -little- perspective. Our technology, including to a minor degree the spectacularly impressive though hardly drone like UAVs, has helped the militia fighters on the ground win this. But it is those militia, the same infighting badly organized peasants that held the Russian bear at bay for years, that did the early work on the ground (90% of the work on the ground mostly likely) and took the casualties for us. THEY are the ones that did this, not some low bandwidth flying camera platform with two tiny missiles under its wings.
"It seems only a matter of time before other countries developed their own surrogate weaponry, and the idea of the high-tech Drone War -- machines warring with one another -- moves to the next level." Huh? Since when did machine on machine war become "the next level" of Drone War?? That IS drone war, and we aren't there yet. Our cool, tiny little Unmanned planes aren't drones, and to the very limited degree that they can "fight", they're doing it against (backwords and poorly armed) humans, not drones. That is not a "drone war".
"...suggested that wars can't really be won in the conventional sense any longer; even the victors will suffer unacceptable losses." Oh, read a few more of Mr. Keegans books. -Every- war is followed by a small vocal group declaring it to horrific to ever happen again (every one). But remember the Japanese militaries distribution of punji sticks to civilians on the home island (with directions on poisoning them). Remember the fire bombing, the total annihaltion of all life, in Dresden and the ZERO effect that had on the Nazi war machine. Sorry to say it, but War isn't going to end because weapons become more effective. How did this idea of "Drone War" enter the public mind? Popular fiction like Star Wars... and it isn't called "To terrible to contemplate Wars in the Stars so lets hang out with Darth and sing Coombiaya" (no sp, sorry).
"A war without sacrifice is definitely a 21st century idea."- Seems to me it's a John Katz idea, even the stylized "war" in star wars shows sacrifice when humans die in waves of damage emanating from the warring drones (wich are after all only proxy humans). There is no war without sacrifice. The US taxpayer will feel the bite of those 4 million dollar cruise missiles (that we're running out of). The Afghani warlords feel it in the blood of their dying comrades.
"Why should citizens of any country hesitate to wage such a war if they have the machinery?" Because the machinery, just like B52s and B2s, is used to destroy the infrastructure that allows the construction of the machinery. Just like the US bombed the Ruhr Valley in WWII to end German war production (and a damn good plan it was), just like we cluster bombed the runway at Kandahar international airport and went after Al Quaidas communication network. People die when that happens, war -is- horrible, that's why countries don't wage war that isn't critical to their percieved self interest. Thanks for asking ; ) BK425 All of this is my opinion.