If you think the government's current attacks on free speech over the internet are bad, you should read up on Lincoln's crackdown on telegraph lines (not to mention all the newspapers he closed, etc.)
I wonder how they want to detect an approaching projectile.
Millimeter-wave radar would do fine, as long as the bullet was metallic. I've read about another idea for protecting people from gunfire which was a radar-triggered airbag that would pop up if anything within a hundred feet or so was moving too fast. The air bag would be made of kevlar, and the a bullet hitting it would stop like an arrow hitting a curtain.
So, given the knowledge that a bullet is heading for you, you would opt to stay put instead of avoiding it, on the off chance that another hazard would present itself?
I've had fine results with commercial remedies. Be sure you check the traps often, you don't want to have rodents rotting in your building any longer than necessary.
The problem with a lot of third world nations is that they have zero competitive advantage
I disagree. I would say that for most of the real basket cases, there's no way to discover what their competitive advantages might be while their local kleptocrats remain in power.
You left out the Longhorn debacle, which is the single most expensive software project failure in history. They were about 12 billion dollars down the hole when they tossed it and restarted from the Windows Server 2003 code base.
The largest one before that, AFAIK was IBM's "Office Vision", 400 million spent, nada delivered.
Microsoft's biggest money sinks are their attempts to get into businesses where they don't have the monopoly leverage. They'll never break even on Xbox, Zune, or their half-assed Google knock-off. MS needs to come to terms with the fact that they are not a growth company, and they never will be again.
We've had 8 years of "tax cuts are how you stimulate the economy" and look where we are.
More like, we've had several decades of the Federal Reserve inflating the money like crazy to avoid a recession, and the bubble had to burst sooner or later.
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that, just because I live in the "West" and have benefits and a pretty comfortable life, I somehow "owe" people who are less fortunate.
I notice that most of the people pushing that line want the third world to have everything we do, except for capitalism, which made it possible.
Slashdot Mirror
During the industrial revolution people had gotten the idea they could use abuse cheap and underpaid labour
That attitude certainly wasn't an 18th-century development. Life had been very cheap in Europe since prehistory.
Reform happened because it became economically feasible, thanks to capital investment that increased the productivity of labor.
-jcr
Would you care to repeat that in German?
-jcr
latest capitalistic caused global fuck up
Guess again. We were regulated right into this mess.
-jcr
I don't see any reason why it would take a century. Japan and Korea did it a lot faster than that.
-jcr
Yeah, but the USA had the 1st amendment from the start...
Well, we did start out by overthrowing our king.
-jcr
Capitalism can only work because it thrives on and creates the poor.
Thank you for that marxist flashback, you ignorant twat.
Capitalism is the way out of poverty. Those countries that reject it inflict starvation on their people.
-jcr
I would say subsistence farming is much better than 41 cents/hour in a factory.
Say it all you want, but the people who actually have to make that decision seem to have come to a different conclusion.
-jcr
let's see if it changes over time as the country develops
It did in the USA, the UK, and every other country that went through a transition from a mostly agricultural to an industrial economy.
-jcr
Stop the presses! This is unprecedented!
-jcr
If you think the government's current attacks on free speech over the internet are bad, you should read up on Lincoln's crackdown on telegraph lines (not to mention all the newspapers he closed, etc.)
-jcr
Heh.. So, you've never met one of the lefties who loves to wallow in guilt, eh?
-jcr
There's no way you can do the same with a six-inch antenna (or whatever).
Why not? You'd be scanning thousands of feet around you, not hundreds of miles.
Also, radar antennae tend to spin so you get a latency in the detection.
Not all radars need a moving antenna.
-jcr
The idea wasn't to wear them, but to install them along the ground where the potential target would be walking.
-jcr
So this armor can detect, say the size of a small marble, from 2500 meters away?
Sure, why not? Radar routinely detects objects that cover far smaller arcs in its field of view.
-jcr
I wonder how they want to detect an approaching projectile.
Millimeter-wave radar would do fine, as long as the bullet was metallic. I've read about another idea for protecting people from gunfire which was a radar-triggered airbag that would pop up if anything within a hundred feet or so was moving too fast. The air bag would be made of kevlar, and the a bullet hitting it would stop like an arrow hitting a curtain.
-jcr
So, given the knowledge that a bullet is heading for you, you would opt to stay put instead of avoiding it, on the off chance that another hazard would present itself?
-jcr
I've had fine results with commercial remedies. Be sure you check the traps often, you don't want to have rodents rotting in your building any longer than necessary.
-jcr
The problem with a lot of third world nations is that they have zero competitive advantage
I disagree. I would say that for most of the real basket cases, there's no way to discover what their competitive advantages might be while their local kleptocrats remain in power.
-jcr
I hadn't heard of Taligent costing quite that much.
-jcr
You left out the Longhorn debacle, which is the single most expensive software project failure in history. They were about 12 billion dollars down the hole when they tossed it and restarted from the Windows Server 2003 code base.
The largest one before that, AFAIK was IBM's "Office Vision", 400 million spent, nada delivered.
-jcr
I sure wouldn't want it flying over my property.
-jcr
Microsoft's biggest money sinks are their attempts to get into businesses where they don't have the monopoly leverage. They'll never break even on Xbox, Zune, or their half-assed Google knock-off. MS needs to come to terms with the fact that they are not a growth company, and they never will be again.
-jcr
But the prices were high enough that many people just didn't fly.
Precisely. By deregulating the airline industry, we made it possible for many more people to afford air travel.
-jcr
We've had 8 years of "tax cuts are how you stimulate the economy" and look where we are.
More like, we've had several decades of the Federal Reserve inflating the money like crazy to avoid a recession, and the bubble had to burst sooner or later.
-jcr
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that, just because I live in the "West" and have benefits and a pretty comfortable life, I somehow "owe" people who are less fortunate.
I notice that most of the people pushing that line want the third world to have everything we do, except for capitalism, which made it possible.
-jcr