See. You missed the fact that two different posters responded to your original post. The other person was backing up the first and I agree. You missed the point entirely and then started your rebuttal with an insult. Not the best way to gain the intellectual upper hand. Maybe you need some more training?
Impossible! We know that can't possibly be true as it has been proven that nobody can possibly get fat on ramen noodles! As multiple studies have shown, geeks who live in their mother's basement are always morbidly obese. Here is an extremely rare picture of a slashdotter in the wild. Note the cheery decor of their humble basement abode.
To summarize: Your insulting reply made little in the way of sense and was clearly based upon pseudoscience. Thankfully I live in a country that places a great value on weapons of mass destruction and has invested a great deal of its fortunes in their development. It is these very weapons of mass destruction that has kept my country more or less at peace with the civilized world. Like it or not, the threat of retaliation has kept countries with aspirations of conquest from knocking at my countries doorstep. Oh yeah, that, and that evil world trade movement. I hope we build stronger and more destructive tanks, planes and other assorted weapons, especially a missile shield. To all the countries and peoples of those countries that are jealous my country offers the following: an extended middle finger, and if you don't like that well then, hey, fuck you!
There's a good bit about this in wikipedia. Pretty interesting. The cost and heat shield parts are almost ironic.
Even before the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, NASA began early studies of space shuttle designs. The early studies beginning in October, 1968 were denoted "Phase A." Further studies resulted in "Phase B" in June 1970. These plans were much more detailed and more specific.
In 1969 President Richard Nixon formed the Space Task Group, chaired by vice president Spiro T. Agnew. This group evaluated the shuttle studies to date, and recommended a national space strategy including building a space shuttle.[1]
In October 1969, at a space shuttle symposium held in Washington, George Mueller (NASA's deputy administrator) presented opening remarks:[1]
The goal we have set for ourselves is the reduction of the present costs of operating in space from the current figure of $1,000 a pound for a payload delivered in orbit by the Saturn V, down to a level of somewhere between $20 and $50 a pound. By so doing we can open up a whole new era of space exploration. Therefore, the challenge before this symposium and before all of us in the Air Force and NASA in the weeks and months ahead is to be sure that we can implement a system that is capable of doing just that. Let me outline three areas which, in my view, are critical to the achievement of these objectives. One is the development of an engine that will provide sufficient specific impulse, with adequate margin to propel its own weight and the desired payload. A second technical problem is the development of the reentry heat shield, so that we can reuse that heat shield time after time with minimal refurbishment and testing. The third general critical development area is a checkout and control system which provides autonomous operation by the crew without major support from the ground and which will allow low cost of maintenance and repair. Of the three, the latter may be a greater challenge than the first two.
The 1972 NASA/GAO REPORT TO THE CONGRESS, Cost-Benefit Analysis Used In Support Of The Space Shuttle Program states:[2]
NASA has proposed that a space shuttle be developed for U.S. Space Transportation needs for NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and other users in the 1980s. The primary objective of the Space Shuttle Program is to provide a new space transportation capability that will:
* reduce substantially the cost of space operations and
* provide a future capability designed to support a wide range of scientific, defense, and commercial uses.
Alexandria from Orlando How long does it take for the Orbiter to get in to orbit? Very good question, it only takes 8 and half minutes. It's quite a wild ride when you consider that they have to go from that standing start to 17,500 mile per hour. In the initial acceleration, right off the launch pad going straight up it's faster than a Corvette, I do believe. And the amazing thing is that the whole shuttle stack weighs about 4 and half million pounds, not just 3,000 pounds like a Corvette.
Its true that it takes less than ten minutes. It still is not the speed that science fiction depicts it as being, where a space ship just zooms out of a planet instantly, though I suspect our g force limitations would keep us from going much faster. It was more just a comment, and yes, I am just talking out of my ass =). It is true that nasa has tough times ahead. It is also true that we need some massive technological leap forward to make space travel all that feasible.
While the 20 some year old space shuttle (that was kind of funny, I mistyped it shittle the first time) ages not so gracefully, we need a replacement to move people and objects to the ISS. Obama is already talking about scaling back the most massive projects at NASA, and in today's econopolitical climate I doubt there is going to be a great deal of support behind new huge expensive rockets. For the amount of raw materials and fuel expended (yes, I know rockets can be relaunched) it doesn't strike me as a very efficient way to get into space. Where are the sleek little ships that we hop into and are in orbit in minutes? I know its science fiction (orbit takes a great deal of velocity and acceleration from 0 to such lofty speeds might take a bit of time), but we should be pouring a lot more of our money and time into finding better sources of energy and ways to harvest them. I mean, liquid fuel rockets are like whawt, 60-70 year old technology now? Nuclear technology....60 years roughly? All these advances happened at or near the end of World War II. Computers....oh wait...that was also about 60 some years ago. Sure every technology has been advanced, but when you look at the overall progress (transistors, notwithstanding) it has all been an evolution from these earlier examples, but nothing so revolutionary as they were in the first place. The combustion engine was developed over 100 years ago. Where is the Edison of the new age? Where is the Tesla of the 21st century? Could I be totally wrong in thinking that while our rate of knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate, our actual technology is increasing on a much, much flatter curve, if it is a curve at all.......?
No I meant the size page size...like the 12k you mentioned that windows uses. Is there a reason for it to not be say 1k vs the 8k and 12k linux and windows uses?
My thoughts exactly. I can think of a multitude of possible applications that we have yet to tackle simply single core processors were not up to the task of computing the large data sets efficiently. So many applications have been relegated to high-performance computing. Such as weather prediction, 3d rendering, chaos math, simulation, etc. Software has been been outpaced to what hardware is capable of (games notwithstanding) for some time now. Even this single core athlong64 3000 i'm using is about 100x faster than the 486 I used to think was blazing, and yet, the best we have is new versions of the same programs with layer upon layer of feature creep added in to the point where Word on the 486 ran about as well as Word on the mini super computer.It amazes me how many applications aren't multithreaded. Even on a single core, you could at least still work on something while the program also executed some task or job in the background. So man applications force you to just sit and wait on some infuriating task bar. We need more multithreading period.
btw, I didn't mean to start a flame war or anything (I'm actually a pretty nice guy). I just never could figure out why there would be any advantage to defragmenting RAM. But, hey, it sucks your PC won't hibernate without a crappy third party utility. I dual boot into linux a lot, so hibernation is certainly attractive (and it works on both OSes), but my systems are so lean and mean and XP seems to certainly run better on a fresh boot, that I'm ok with wating the extra 20 seconds. I've noticed that with hibernate (at least on XP) it seems to page everything out to the swap, so even after booting into the desktop it takes some time (and disk grind) for applications become usable again.
Strange that 1 gig is the barrier. NT has been solid on multiple gigabyte systems longer than XP has been around. I suspect the lack of swap is problematic. Windows really likes to have heaps of swap to play with...certainly at least equal to your installed RAM.
Makes me want to play with that! Netbeans does some profiling in java, and its pretty neat to watch your code suck up CPU in the rough spots. (Like everywhere in mine:)
I don't know why people here are bagging paging as such a bad thing. Of course your OS will try to use all of your RAM. It makes no sense for it not to cache as much as possible with all that free, idle memory available.
I know its off topic, but I was just curious, but doesn't omitting the frame pointer break some code, or is that completely unnecessary? I thought C/C++ needed the frame pointers as a point of reference to the stack? I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to C.....
Secondly I've compiled things in Gentoo without the frame-pointer (no problems), but I question how much of an improvement over just a level 3 optimization that gives you. On older (Pentium-166) hardware it didn't really seem to improve responsiveness any at all.
I've been thinking about rolling gentoo again, but Ubuntu really has it pretty down. I know with apt you can download source files, but to have them automatically compile and install (ala portage, bsd ports, etc) it would be pretty awesome.
Or maybe apt can auto-compile...need to look into this further.....
Don't think I can drift anymore off topic here, so I'll just quit....:)
Also note the lack of benchmarks on the software in question's website. They only make vague references to what the program actually does and then they talk alot about all the bonus stuff it comes with (new task manager, etc). Snaaaaaaake oil.
Its all snake oil man. First of all nothing is even allocated directly to the physical ram. It all goes into the virtual memory pool IIRC. The best a program like this can do is make sure the blocks are contiguous, but I truly fail to see the benefit of that. If it ain't broke.....
Uh. You do realize that block of ram are not written contiguously right? You won't find it any different on Linux or MacOS or any operating system for that matter. You also realize that the access time of RAM is effectively 0 right? Yeah, the AC was right. Nothing in the KB article about ram fragmentation. That program is also one of those create "free" ram programs that I despise so much. These kinds of utilities might be somewhat marginally useful on a very resource bound system, but I can hardly see the use for this crap. Even if RAM were to be somehow "defragmented" how could it possibly make it any faster? The bottleneck isn't in accessing the addresses. An OS keeps a running tab of what is stored where. As soon as it makes the request for the data its coming off of the RAM as fast as the FSB will let it pass through. The reason defragmenting is effective on hard drives is because the hard drive has a physical dimension where the heads take actual time to move to the desired location. In RAM there is no moving parts and hence, extremely low latency, which is measured in nanoseconds versus the milliseconds they use to measure latency in hard drives.
I smell snake oil here. That is, unless you have some real science to back up the benefits of ram "defragmenting"
All the security in the world will not keep paypal from fucking your account over and freezing your funds. Just go to paypalsucks.org or some similar site and read the horror stories. The fact that these scammers have gone on for so long without having to conform to normal banking standards is simply beyond belief. At least ebay is now finally letting third parties in on the payments.
Defrag ram? You mean create new free space in ram right? Generally that leads to everything that was in those addresses suddenly getting dumped to the page file. I never really saw the benefit in that.....
Have you considered a super tiny paging file? You can go as low as 2 megs on a windows box...
So Macs went up a percent and Linux actually lost traction with FreeBSD and everything else rising. PS3 stagnating.....interesting statistics here! You know...after over 10 years of the impending "Year of the Linux Desktop" you'd think those linux based operating systems would be doing a little better. Less than 1% seems kind of low. It surely must be higher. I mean is 2% so unfathomable? How about:
Better graphics drivers?
One unified kick ass desktop vs 48 window managers? (What does choice matter when it is reduced to a choice between mediocrity?)
Something other than X?
A unified sound architecture?
A file system layout that is coherent?
A consistent look to applications?
Some really killer apps that don't exist anywhere else?
Gee. I could go on and on, but really, until some of these issues are addressed, it sadly, will never be the year of the linux desktop.
Interesting how the average sentences are 7-8 years for violent offenders and 6-7 years for drug offenders. It would be a better composite to take a whole year into account.....and what's that....Obama wants to double the tax on the rich? And what's with the bracket in the middle between 2-300k that only has to pay $12......???
Gotta love this stat...
"With less than 5% of world population; USA has over 2.3 million of 9 million world prisoners!"
"The U.S. incarceration rate is over 5 times higher than in 1971 when the impeached arch-criminal, "law-and-order" President Richard Nixon declared an evil "war on drugs" as a substitute for the good "war on poverty.""
"At midyear 2005, nearly 4.7 percent of black males were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9 percent of Hispanic males, and 0.7 percent of white males. Among males in their late 20s, nearly 12 percent of black males, compared to 3.9 percent of Hispanic males and 1.7 percent of white males, were incarcerated"
Oh he links to this great story too...
"CHICAGO -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.
0923 05The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.
"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.
The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs."
Of course he is also claiming that 1.2 million iraqis have died. I've heard the figures near the couple hundred thousand mark, but million?
Average cost to fund bailout per capita: $80. Amount of cars you could buy at $20k a car: 1.25 million.
Of course you could make those numbers smaller and larger...
I'd say detroit lost the game some time ago, but there is something to be said about having our car manufacturing capacity reduced to completely foreign interests. Would Honda help us make tanks? Some people don't see the greater sense of scale in the collapse of the american industrial complex. The rustbelt of america slowly spreads leaving burned out factory carcasses in its wake. Sure our gdp and manufacturing stats put us at a respectable number one, but still, that is certainly fading fast, with the EU already out producing the united states.
Slashdot Mirror
See. You missed the fact that two different posters responded to your original post. The other person was backing up the first and I agree. You missed the point entirely and then started your rebuttal with an insult. Not the best way to gain the intellectual upper hand. Maybe you need some more training?
Impossible! We know that can't possibly be true as it has been proven that nobody can possibly get fat on ramen noodles! As multiple studies have shown, geeks who live in their mother's basement are always morbidly obese. Here is an extremely rare picture of a slashdotter in the wild. Note the cheery decor of their humble basement abode.
http://www.carnagecorp.com/pub/pictures/fat_geek.jpg
To summarize: Your insulting reply made little in the way of sense and was clearly based upon pseudoscience. Thankfully I live in a country that places a great value on weapons of mass destruction and has invested a great deal of its fortunes in their development. It is these very weapons of mass destruction that has kept my country more or less at peace with the civilized world. Like it or not, the threat of retaliation has kept countries with aspirations of conquest from knocking at my countries doorstep. Oh yeah, that, and that evil world trade movement. I hope we build stronger and more destructive tanks, planes and other assorted weapons, especially a missile shield. To all the countries and peoples of those countries that are jealous my country offers the following: an extended middle finger, and if you don't like that well then, hey, fuck you!
Or else what?
Foxtab:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8879
Coverflow styled ctrl+tab.
There's a good bit about this in wikipedia. Pretty interesting. The cost and heat shield parts are almost ironic.
Gotta love nasa:
Alexandria from Orlando
How long does it take for the Orbiter to get in to orbit?
Very good question, it only takes 8 and half minutes. It's quite a wild ride when you consider that they have to go from that standing start to 17,500 mile per hour. In the initial acceleration, right off the launch pad going straight up it's faster than a Corvette, I do believe. And the amazing thing is that the whole shuttle stack weighs about 4 and half million pounds, not just 3,000 pounds like a Corvette.
Its true that it takes less than ten minutes. It still is not the speed that science fiction depicts it as being, where a space ship just zooms out of a planet instantly, though I suspect our g force limitations would keep us from going much faster. It was more just a comment, and yes, I am just talking out of my ass =). It is true that nasa has tough times ahead. It is also true that we need some massive technological leap forward to make space travel all that feasible.
While the 20 some year old space shuttle (that was kind of funny, I mistyped it shittle the first time) ages not so gracefully, we need a replacement to move people and objects to the ISS. Obama is already talking about scaling back the most massive projects at NASA, and in today's econopolitical climate I doubt there is going to be a great deal of support behind new huge expensive rockets. For the amount of raw materials and fuel expended (yes, I know rockets can be relaunched) it doesn't strike me as a very efficient way to get into space. Where are the sleek little ships that we hop into and are in orbit in minutes? I know its science fiction (orbit takes a great deal of velocity and acceleration from 0 to such lofty speeds might take a bit of time), but we should be pouring a lot more of our money and time into finding better sources of energy and ways to harvest them. I mean, liquid fuel rockets are like whawt, 60-70 year old technology now? Nuclear technology....60 years roughly? All these advances happened at or near the end of World War II. Computers....oh wait...that was also about 60 some years ago. Sure every technology has been advanced, but when you look at the overall progress (transistors, notwithstanding) it has all been an evolution from these earlier examples, but nothing so revolutionary as they were in the first place. The combustion engine was developed over 100 years ago. Where is the Edison of the new age? Where is the Tesla of the 21st century? Could I be totally wrong in thinking that while our rate of knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate, our actual technology is increasing on a much, much flatter curve, if it is a curve at all.......?
That certainly answers my question. Thanks. :)
No I meant the size page size...like the 12k you mentioned that windows uses. Is there a reason for it to not be say 1k vs the 8k and 12k linux and windows uses?
My thoughts exactly. I can think of a multitude of possible applications that we have yet to tackle simply single core processors were not up to the task of computing the large data sets efficiently.
So many applications have been relegated to high-performance computing. Such as weather prediction, 3d rendering, chaos math, simulation, etc. Software has been been outpaced to what hardware is capable of (games notwithstanding) for some time now. Even this single core athlong64 3000 i'm using is about 100x faster than the 486 I used to think was blazing, and yet, the best we have is new versions of the same programs with layer upon layer of feature creep added in to the point where Word on the 486 ran about as well as Word on the mini super computer.It amazes me how many applications aren't multithreaded. Even on a single core, you could at least still work on something while the program also executed some task or job in the background. So man applications force you to just sit and wait on some infuriating task bar.
We need more multithreading period.
I was first struck with how it looked straight out of the 50s X planes...the X-1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Bell_X-1_color.jpg
Compare that to:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2215031466_18acd44909.jpg
Oh yeah. How did they get around the reentry stabilization problem? Or do they actually leave the influence of atmosphere?
That's right. I knew that too! :P
I totally forgot about the frame references for debugging.
Thank you for totally clearing that up.
Isn't the lower limit for reasons of performance...as in less chunks to maintain and keep track of?
btw, I didn't mean to start a flame war or anything (I'm actually a pretty nice guy). I just never could figure out why there would be any advantage to defragmenting RAM. But, hey, it sucks your PC won't hibernate without a crappy third party utility. I dual boot into linux a lot, so hibernation is certainly attractive (and it works on both OSes), but my systems are so lean and mean and XP seems to certainly run better on a fresh boot, that I'm ok with wating the extra 20 seconds. I've noticed that with hibernate (at least on XP) it seems to page everything out to the swap, so even after booting into the desktop it takes some time (and disk grind) for applications become usable again.
Strange that 1 gig is the barrier. NT has been solid on multiple gigabyte systems longer than XP has been around. I suspect the lack of swap is problematic. Windows really likes to have heaps of swap to play with...certainly at least equal to your installed RAM.
blah
good luck with that
Makes me want to play with that! Netbeans does some profiling in java, and its pretty neat to watch your code suck up CPU in the rough spots. (Like everywhere in mine :)
I don't know why people here are bagging paging as such a bad thing. Of course your OS will try to use all of your RAM. It makes no sense for it not to cache as much as possible with all that free, idle memory available.
I know its off topic, but I was just curious, but doesn't omitting the frame pointer break some code, or is that completely unnecessary? I thought C/C++ needed the frame pointers as a point of reference to the stack? I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to C.....
Secondly I've compiled things in Gentoo without the frame-pointer (no problems), but I question how much of an improvement over just a level 3 optimization that gives you. On older (Pentium-166) hardware it didn't really seem to improve responsiveness any at all.
I've been thinking about rolling gentoo again, but Ubuntu really has it pretty down. I know with apt you can download source files, but to have them automatically compile and install (ala portage, bsd ports, etc) it would be pretty awesome.
Or maybe apt can auto-compile...need to look into this further.....
Don't think I can drift anymore off topic here, so I'll just quit.... :)
Also note the lack of benchmarks on the software in question's website. They only make vague references to what the program actually does and then they talk alot about all the bonus stuff it comes with (new task manager, etc). Snaaaaaaake oil.
Its all snake oil man. First of all nothing is even allocated directly to the physical ram. It all goes into the virtual memory pool IIRC. The best a program like this can do is make sure the blocks are contiguous, but I truly fail to see the benefit of that. If it ain't broke.....
Uh. You do realize that block of ram are not written contiguously right? You won't find it any different on Linux or MacOS or any operating system for that matter. You also realize that the access time of RAM is effectively 0 right? Yeah, the AC was right. Nothing in the KB article about ram fragmentation. That program is also one of those create "free" ram programs that I despise so much. These kinds of utilities might be somewhat marginally useful on a very resource bound system, but I can hardly see the use for this crap. Even if RAM were to be somehow "defragmented" how could it possibly make it any faster? The bottleneck isn't in accessing the addresses. An OS keeps a running tab of what is stored where. As soon as it makes the request for the data its coming off of the RAM as fast as the FSB will let it pass through. The reason defragmenting is effective on hard drives is because the hard drive has a physical dimension where the heads take actual time to move to the desired location. In RAM there is no moving parts and hence, extremely low latency, which is measured in nanoseconds versus the milliseconds they use to measure latency in hard drives.
I smell snake oil here. That is, unless you have some real science to back up the benefits of ram "defragmenting"
All the security in the world will not keep paypal from fucking your account over and freezing your funds. Just go to paypalsucks.org or some similar site and read the horror stories. The fact that these scammers have gone on for so long without having to conform to normal banking standards is simply beyond belief. At least ebay is now finally letting third parties in on the payments.
Defrag ram? You mean create new free space in ram right? Generally that leads to everything that was in those addresses suddenly getting dumped to the page file. I never really saw the benefit in that.....
Have you considered a super tiny paging file? You can go as low as 2 megs on a windows box...
So Macs went up a percent and Linux actually lost traction with FreeBSD and everything else rising. PS3 stagnating.....interesting statistics here! You know...after over 10 years of the impending "Year of the Linux Desktop" you'd think those linux based operating systems would be doing a little better. Less than 1% seems kind of low. It surely must be higher. I mean is 2% so unfathomable? How about:
Better graphics drivers?
One unified kick ass desktop vs 48 window managers? (What does choice matter when it is reduced to a choice between mediocrity?)
Something other than X?
A unified sound architecture?
A file system layout that is coherent?
A consistent look to applications?
Some really killer apps that don't exist anywhere else?
Gee. I could go on and on, but really, until some of these issues are addressed, it sadly, will never be the year of the linux desktop.
Interesting how the average sentences are 7-8 years for violent offenders and 6-7 years for drug offenders. It would be a better composite to take a whole year into account.....and what's that....Obama wants to double the tax on the rich? And what's with the bracket in the middle between 2-300k that only has to pay $12......???
Gotta love this stat...
"With less than 5% of world population; USA has over 2.3 million of 9 million world prisoners!"
"The U.S. incarceration rate is over 5 times higher than in 1971 when the impeached arch-criminal, "law-and-order" President Richard Nixon declared an evil "war on drugs" as a substitute for the good "war on poverty.""
"At midyear 2005, nearly 4.7 percent of black males were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9 percent of Hispanic males, and 0.7 percent of white males. Among males in their late 20s, nearly 12 percent of black males, compared to 3.9 percent of Hispanic males and 1.7 percent of white males, were incarcerated"
Oh he links to this great story too...
"CHICAGO -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.
0923 05The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.
"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.
The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs."
Of course he is also claiming that 1.2 million iraqis have died. I've heard the figures near the couple hundred thousand mark, but million?
Thanks for the zany link =)
Some figures....
Average cost to fund bailout per capita: $80.
Amount of cars you could buy at $20k a car: 1.25 million.
Of course you could make those numbers smaller and larger...
I'd say detroit lost the game some time ago, but there is something to be said about having our car manufacturing capacity reduced to completely foreign interests. Would Honda help us make tanks? Some people don't see the greater sense of scale in the collapse of the american industrial complex. The rustbelt of america slowly spreads leaving burned out factory carcasses in its wake. Sure our gdp and manufacturing stats put us at a respectable number one, but still, that is certainly fading fast, with the EU already out producing the united states.
Its a real killer.