Underground silos are built to withstand pretty much everything but a direct ground burst right on the silo cap. In other words, missiles are already protected from first strike. The reason why we can have MAD is exactly because missiles systems are built to survive in order to retaliate.
Yes, that didn't come out very logical sounding on the surface sorry. Think of covering yourself as adding layers of obfuscation. A master of the craft has advanced techniques, and the FBI would be just as vulnerable to them with or without this program. but for the vast majority of people without training, the more they do to isolate and cover themselves the more behavioral patterns will emerge.
Or the NYT is, wittingly or unwittingly, part of an even bigger game to put out the perception that the FBI is broadly and deeply infiltrated into the underground supply chain that caters to would-be domestic terrorists, so as to inject mistrust among them, making them take extra precautions that would make them more detectable. Oh boy, wheels within wheels!
yes I'm sure the editors wanted a serene discussion on comparative construction techniques, and didn't for a minute think about the potential for this to quickly devolve into a political discussion that will get 900+ posts and a nice boost in ad impressions.
Egypt did that? Surely you mean the Egypt that is comprised of the military council which is currently desperate to shed itself of public focus and criticism? (not to imply that I favor their more radical opposition*) How do you tell others to not trust a single source when your claim is premised on a single source?
*pitiful that I have to say these things, but apparently people read too far between the lines on/.
I don't know how you can say the Arab Spring is a machination of the US government when it has been more harmful to US influence in the region than it has been beneficial. Why would the US overthrow Mubarak when he was both capable and often agreeable to much of US ME policy? In fact, I'd say the US is opposed to the Arab Spring based on its continued aid to Yemen/Saudi Arabia/Bahrain. Tunisia and Egypt merely got too hot too fast, and the State Dept couldn't touch them without backlash.
And how can you use the word "coup" for a movement of popular dissent? How hateful of the US and lacking in compassion must you be to dismiss the legitimate concerns of those dissenters just because you believe the US may be simultaneously opposed to those governments? Does a US alignment with a popular rebellion immediately poison that rebellion? Do you think so little of those people?
First of all, I think anyone espousing a view so cynical should review some morality tales on the fallacy of vilifying those whom one opposes. Second, if you think the word "conventional" is used subversively to establish a sort of normalized perspective on modern farming, then I can't imagine the head-splitting fit you'd have over the subversive effects of the word "organic" on our perspective on alternative farming methods. If we are to be consistently cynical, then use of the word "organic" must also be deemed a sort of bias to portray industrial techniques as substandard, abnormal, unaccepted, unsafe, problem-prone, etc. in comparison.
Conventional means the commonly accepted method. In the case of contemporary farming practice, the use of pesticides and chemically derived fertilizers is indeed conventional. It seems to me like you may have confused the meaning of "conventional" with that of "traditional", and indeed you are correct in pointing out that what is "organic farming" today was just "farming" in the past, but that would nonetheless make it traditional rather than conventional.
In short, that was stormy rant born of a vocabulary deficiency. Sinister? Sheesh, the Slashdot melodrama these days...
You can bet demand will go down in the short term as Americans get into paranoia mode about beef, and supply isn't going to go anywhere (in fact they may go up as exports decline due to international fear of US beef) Yummy steaks here we come!
Maybe because the irrational fear that surrounds something with a transmission rate of 1 out of millions can affect the market far more so than actual health of the population at large. If this tells us anything at all (which I doubt) it would be something about the emotional factor in futures trading.
Ah sorry I didn't rtfa. They focused on the availability of malware within each marketplace, which is another good measurement, though totally different from what I was thinking. Post rescinded.
Would the ability to run unapproved software make the infection rates in both of these subgroups near equal? I wonder how many out of all android device are rooted, and how many out of all ios devices are jailbroken. If a higher ratio of droid phones are rooted, with all else equal, then that could also push up the infection rates.
You run Linux regularly? You either are: a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit operating outside of its designed architecture, or making shit up. Who thinks this stuff up?
Available Asian-American actors in 1960's: not many Available White or Black-American actors in 1960's: many
still true today, since Asians mostly pursue technical/scientific careers and regard the arts as an unreliable way to provide for one's self or family.
You didn't really say anything positive about Obama there. All you said is that you personally believe that he might throw a dog an extra bone. But then if Obama can capture your faith due to past policy initiatives (while ignoring things like FISA, Patriot Act extension, NDAA, etc), then should not Romney also have your faith from his rather liberal policy initiatives during his tenure in Massachusetts (while ignoring his current rhetoric)? In addition, would it not be fair to view Romney's election year politicking and inconsistent rhetoric more broadly, and extend to him the same sympathy and consideration as some have to Obama during his bid for the Presidency?
In the eyes of the majority on this site, the Democratic party is the softer and more caring party. But maybe we can also reconsider a popular line of reasoning from not too long ago: If the average citizen is powerless against the marriage of politics and business in either party (be it Romney with Wall Street, or Obama with Big Media), does that make the more tactful and less blatant party the more insidious one?
*Just some food for thought on our own biases and preconceptions. I personally like Obama, but I also don't consider Romney the monster that many make him out to be.
Teacher was introducing order of operations, and started off by using the incorrect way as an example of what not to do (as in "you solve it this way right? AHA you were WRONG! It's actually this way!) Well, being the smartass who already knew order of operations I jumped the gun had to make it clear to her how wrong that was. Got yelled at for messing up her teaching plan haha
I find these rebuttals humorous in the sense that opposition to missile defense comes in two opposing forms: 1) missile defense should not be implemented because it is a waste of money since it is such an immature a technology that even if widely implemented a few MIRVs can still penetrate, and 2) missile defense should not be implemented because such an effective shield would make the shield bearer more willing to nuke another country.
In criticizing ballistic missile defense, these systems are made out to be at once completely ineffective and completely effective. I think this contradiction points to a conclusion somewhere in the middle: that ballistic missile defense partially effective, and that it really has only one use, which is to safe guard against errant launches and rogue groups in possession of at most a handful of missiles. In other words, it fails as a strategic threat.
This is why, in addition to the US, Russia and China, along with many regional powers around the world, have active anti missile systems in place, and why the US isn't moving against existing or new systems in those countries (which it would if it in fact wanted to "strike with impunity").
JDAM accuracy is one thing, lethality within the blast radius is another. Accuracy isn't what contributes to collateral damage, it's proximity of people, or the reliance on human shields. So the fail is in using innocents to protect oneself, and perhaps also in the decision to bomb (but what to do if target is shielded 24/7?)
Slashdot Mirror
Underground silos are built to withstand pretty much everything but a direct ground burst right on the silo cap. In other words, missiles are already protected from first strike. The reason why we can have MAD is exactly because missiles systems are built to survive in order to retaliate.
Yes, that didn't come out very logical sounding on the surface sorry. Think of covering yourself as adding layers of obfuscation. A master of the craft has advanced techniques, and the FBI would be just as vulnerable to them with or without this program. but for the vast majority of people without training, the more they do to isolate and cover themselves the more behavioral patterns will emerge.
Or the NYT is, wittingly or unwittingly, part of an even bigger game to put out the perception that the FBI is broadly and deeply infiltrated into the underground supply chain that caters to would-be domestic terrorists, so as to inject mistrust among them, making them take extra precautions that would make them more detectable. Oh boy, wheels within wheels!
Maybe it's not the "R" that makes them intransigent, but the "diehard" as you say.
yes I'm sure the editors wanted a serene discussion on comparative construction techniques, and didn't for a minute think about the potential for this to quickly devolve into a political discussion that will get 900+ posts and a nice boost in ad impressions.
Egypt did that? Surely you mean the Egypt that is comprised of the military council which is currently desperate to shed itself of public focus and criticism? (not to imply that I favor their more radical opposition*)
How do you tell others to not trust a single source when your claim is premised on a single source?
*pitiful that I have to say these things, but apparently people read too far between the lines on /.
I don't know how you can say the Arab Spring is a machination of the US government when it has been more harmful to US influence in the region than it has been beneficial. Why would the US overthrow Mubarak when he was both capable and often agreeable to much of US ME policy? In fact, I'd say the US is opposed to the Arab Spring based on its continued aid to Yemen/Saudi Arabia/Bahrain. Tunisia and Egypt merely got too hot too fast, and the State Dept couldn't touch them without backlash.
And how can you use the word "coup" for a movement of popular dissent? How hateful of the US and lacking in compassion must you be to dismiss the legitimate concerns of those dissenters just because you believe the US may be simultaneously opposed to those governments? Does a US alignment with a popular rebellion immediately poison that rebellion? Do you think so little of those people?
First of all, I think anyone espousing a view so cynical should review some morality tales on the fallacy of vilifying those whom one opposes.
Second, if you think the word "conventional" is used subversively to establish a sort of normalized perspective on modern farming, then I can't imagine the head-splitting fit you'd have over the subversive effects of the word "organic" on our perspective on alternative farming methods. If we are to be consistently cynical, then use of the word "organic" must also be deemed a sort of bias to portray industrial techniques as substandard, abnormal, unaccepted, unsafe, problem-prone, etc. in comparison.
employee dorms to prevent honey trap operations.
Conventional means the commonly accepted method. In the case of contemporary farming practice, the use of pesticides and chemically derived fertilizers is indeed conventional. It seems to me like you may have confused the meaning of "conventional" with that of "traditional", and indeed you are correct in pointing out that what is "organic farming" today was just "farming" in the past, but that would nonetheless make it traditional rather than conventional.
In short, that was stormy rant born of a vocabulary deficiency. Sinister? Sheesh, the Slashdot melodrama these days...
I don't know how I did it, but I read your post wrong :(
You can bet demand will go down in the short term as Americans get into paranoia mode about beef, and supply isn't going to go anywhere (in fact they may go up as exports decline due to international fear of US beef) Yummy steaks here we come!
Maybe because the irrational fear that surrounds something with a transmission rate of 1 out of millions can affect the market far more so than actual health of the population at large. If this tells us anything at all (which I doubt) it would be something about the emotional factor in futures trading.
At least we can look forward to cheaper steaks for a while
Technology enthusiast website
1st post on grand new tech endeavor is a fear reaction
Am I getting old or is everyone else getting old without me?
Ah sorry I didn't rtfa. They focused on the availability of malware within each marketplace, which is another good measurement, though totally different from what I was thinking. Post rescinded.
Would the ability to run unapproved software make the infection rates in both of these subgroups near equal? I wonder how many out of all android device are rooted, and how many out of all ios devices are jailbroken. If a higher ratio of droid phones are rooted, with all else equal, then that could also push up the infection rates.
You run Linux regularly? You either are: a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit operating outside of its designed architecture, or making shit up. Who thinks this stuff up?
probably more due to availability of actors
Available Asian-American actors in 1960's: not many
Available White or Black-American actors in 1960's: many
still true today, since Asians mostly pursue technical/scientific careers and regard the arts as an unreliable way to provide for one's self or family.
You didn't really say anything positive about Obama there. All you said is that you personally believe that he might throw a dog an extra bone. But then if Obama can capture your faith due to past policy initiatives (while ignoring things like FISA, Patriot Act extension, NDAA, etc), then should not Romney also have your faith from his rather liberal policy initiatives during his tenure in Massachusetts (while ignoring his current rhetoric)? In addition, would it not be fair to view Romney's election year politicking and inconsistent rhetoric more broadly, and extend to him the same sympathy and consideration as some have to Obama during his bid for the Presidency?
In the eyes of the majority on this site, the Democratic party is the softer and more caring party. But maybe we can also reconsider a popular line of reasoning from not too long ago: If the average citizen is powerless against the marriage of politics and business in either party (be it Romney with Wall Street, or Obama with Big Media), does that make the more tactful and less blatant party the more insidious one?
*Just some food for thought on our own biases and preconceptions. I personally like Obama, but I also don't consider Romney the monster that many make him out to be.
IQ is overrated. We'd all be better off with a anti-procrastination or anti-irrational-fear gene
Teacher was introducing order of operations, and started off by using the incorrect way as an example of what not to do (as in "you solve it this way right? AHA you were WRONG! It's actually this way!) Well, being the smartass who already knew order of operations I jumped the gun had to make it clear to her how wrong that was. Got yelled at for messing up her teaching plan haha
only one use, which is to safe guard against errant launches and rogue groups
oh shit, I should preview more if I want to make so many edits :(
I find these rebuttals humorous in the sense that opposition to missile defense comes in two opposing forms: 1) missile defense should not be implemented because it is a waste of money since it is such an immature a technology that even if widely implemented a few MIRVs can still penetrate, and 2) missile defense should not be implemented because such an effective shield would make the shield bearer more willing to nuke another country.
In criticizing ballistic missile defense, these systems are made out to be at once completely ineffective and completely effective. I think this contradiction points to a conclusion somewhere in the middle: that ballistic missile defense partially effective, and that it really has only one use, which is to safe guard against errant launches and rogue groups in possession of at most a handful of missiles. In other words, it fails as a strategic threat.
This is why, in addition to the US, Russia and China, along with many regional powers around the world, have active anti missile systems in place, and why the US isn't moving against existing or new systems in those countries (which it would if it in fact wanted to "strike with impunity").
JDAM accuracy is one thing, lethality within the blast radius is another. Accuracy isn't what contributes to collateral damage, it's proximity of people, or the reliance on human shields. So the fail is in using innocents to protect oneself, and perhaps also in the decision to bomb (but what to do if target is shielded 24/7?)