"Arguing that the US started "the war" with Iran is pretty far fetched. While the Iranian people have a legitimate grievance regarding US interference with Iran's internal politics, the US did not take action against them."
The US, and Britain, supported the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. The CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. encouraged General Fazlollah Zahedi, to overthrow Mosaddeq. Yes, the US did start the war.
Sorry, but you are proving my point. The US did not take action against Iranian citizens, it interfered with internal politics. Supporting one Iranian in a coup attempt is the latter, not the former. It was wrong, but it was not an act of war as is attacking an embassy, taking citizens hostage, etc. Again, the Iranians had a justifiable grievance but not a justification for war. Islamic radicalism is the aggressor, it has embraced war for decades.
Arguing that the US started "the war" with Iran is pretty far fetched. While the Iranian people have a legitimate grievance regarding US interference with Iran's internal politics, the US did not take action against them. The islamic radicals did take action against US citizens and the US embassy, hold US citizens hostage, and the islamic government sheltered and supported them and declared the US an enemy that must be destroyed. Radical islam started "the war".
I would go up through Alaska, through Russia via the Bering Sea.
Environmentalists would never allow the cable to go through Alaska. I'm sure it would have to touch some sort of pristine wilderness and the lawsuits would never end.
This may have been a brilliant move on Googles' part. Fully cooperate with the Chinese governments' "Great Firewall" until they could put themselves in a position to undermine that authority.
The Google office, all the data it collected on Chinese individuals, and one end of that cable all exist in Chinese territory. Google operates at the pleasure of the Chinese government. The day Google attempts to move against that government is the day all Google's property and data becomes property of the government and Google's employees are arrested.
You are assuming that google is not an NSA front. Think about it, they monitor and record your web browsing habits, your travel plans, they scan your email, they want you to use their online word processor,... That wanting to know everything about you and your behaviors and interests for the purpose of directed commercial advertising is a beautiful front.;-)
That's Jimmy Carter, the guy who was thrown up against an oil crisis and decided to do what any rational, thinking person would do: develop alternatives. And not start any wars.;-)
Uh, Jimmy Carter invaded Iran. He went in with too few troops, and tried to micromanage things from Washington, and got our ass kicked. Of course you are correct in the sense that he did not start the war, the islamic fundamentalists started it and this same war is still going on today.
How many acres of desert ecosystem are plunged into permanent shade to provide this 64 megawatts of power?
Shade is a natural resource that many desert critters use to varying degrees. It is conceivable that this artificial shade may be of use to local critters. It may turn out to be an interesting thing for a biologist to study. Consider the old cars, plains, and ships that have been cleaned and sunk as artificial reefs.
Space exploration will remain in the control of politicians and bureaucrats forever unless a new means of propulsion is developed outside of their influence. The fuel if nothing else has to come from somewhere that is under governmental control.
There is a lot of "fuel" "in space". Oxygen, hydrogen, methane,...
Nope, not true. I've been interviewed on camera for news stories and have never been asked to sign any kind of release for the use of my image.
If you are voluntarily talking to a TV news crew with cameras running there may be implied consent with respect to a model release. A "contract" does not have to be signed to be valid, performance of terms can be just as good as a signature depending on the circumstances.
My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?
Myself and many others will doing everything we can to encourage the government to go and get you. We have to find some way to get NASA properly funded, perhaps the collection of fees and taxes will work.
All she did for the project was deal with some logistics and prepare the powerpoint slides.
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail... the kingdom was lost. If that's too antiquated, for the want of a telephone sanitizer... the planet was lost.;-)
launch from international waters, it'd take a lot of work building the platform, but it would be worth it.
Actually, being in international waters may make it easier to stop you. You are subject to maritime/admiralty/sea laws, and pretty much any warship has some authority over you.
Anyone who has the technical capability to do a moon shot can safely ignore this. What are they going to say, that their launch doesn't count because it wasn't authorized?
You were planning on returning? While the international treaty may not carry much weight the FAA (assuming US) regulations being violated surely will. You will lose your pilots license, the spaceport you launched from will probably lose it license, expect to be fined, expect your company to be fined (assuming your space venture is not purely a purely personal endeavor), etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sort of criminal charges the government could arrange as well for interfering with treaties, ignoring military authority (assuming they have to approve launches), etc.
Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.'
And so the seeds of colonialism are sown...
It's a little strange when you can't quite figure out if a thought is the result of having read too much history or too much science fiction.:-)
Whether or not cameras -- real OR fake vs none at all has any effect on crime rate is a separate and independent analysis, but I'd say its highly unlikely, since the basic function of a deterrent is to increase risk, which clearly isn't the case here.
There is no clarity here. You can not say the risk is unchanged unless the amount and nature of crime are also unchanged. If the amount or nature have changed that suggests a deterrent effect. The percentage of cases closed tells us nothing about these other variables.
Presumably that question has also been addressed, since it is an obvious one to raise.
Given the politics and emotion of this topic I believe that is a very dangerous assumption. Advocates of a position are highly likely to misuse statistics to forward their agenda.
Politicians will simply ignore the facts and press ahead.
Many around here misrepresent and ignore facts as well. That and they have emotional poorly thought out reactions that are rooted more in their politics than it logic. Note the statement:
"The study found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any."
If you apply a modest amount of logic it might occur to you that everything seems to be described in terms of percentages. The fact the percentages may be similar does not mean cameras are ineffective. What is the volume of crime? The absence of such info should make an unbiased reader quite suspicious. Also what were the volumes before the cameras? One of the stated goals of the camera systems is that they would be a deterrent. The volume of crime could be a fraction of pre-camera days and the percentage of solved crimes could be the same.
I find it incredible that anyone would consider purchasing defense equipment from the USA after this.
When you look at modern air combat and notice how those equipped with US aircraft tend to stay in the air and their opponents equipped with Russian/French/etc aircraft(*) tend to go down in balls of flame I think you will not find it so incredible.
(*) While pilot training is more important than the aircraft, those purchasing US aircraft tend to get pretty good training as well. The US has a track record of training both friends and future enemies pretty well. While Russia has expert pilots, Russia tends not to train others to their level. They are a little more paranoid for some reason, might be the one or two invasions per century.
No, I think the most likely meaning of "code" is "source code". The software that runs inside the radar.
No, you are engaging in a geek bias. Politicians would refer to source code as programming, code almost certainly refers to cryptographic data. I expect that we are talking about cryptographic keys needed to decode the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) signals of combat aircraft.
I suspect Australia(disclaimer Im Australian) thought that as the US and Australia are very close allies the USAF might give us the ability to use the aircraft we purchased.
I see your problem. The F/A-18 is not a US Air Force aircraft, it is a US Navy aircraft. You went knocking on the wrong door.:-)
Going from something along the lines of "this is the one true path" to something like "there is more than one way to do this" sounds like the opposite of assimilation.:-)
It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time.
Support for OpenGL is not being removed, the Mac version will use it. This is not about OpenGL, this is about Linux gaming. Years ago id made an infamous comment in a Game Developer magazine interview, sorry no link - read the hard copy at the time. They said that there is no business justifcation for their Linux clients, that they merely do them because they think it is cool to do so. Perhaps they don't have enough time for this "hobby" anymore.
Keep in mind that the Linux game market is far smaller than most people think. It is not the number of people who buy the Linux version of the game. Given that most Linux gamers are willing to buy the Win32 version of a game and dual boot or emulate, a Linux sale is cannibalism. It replaces a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, it does not generate new income. The only new income is a sale to those who refuse to dual boot or emulate, who will only play native Linux versions. This native group is considered by many developers to be too small to justify the expenses related to porting, testing, and support.
That said, Linux based servers are an entirely different story. These make financial sense.
JC's D3D criticisms are dated, likes modern D3D
on
Is id Abandoning Linux?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.
For many years Direct3D has had a substantial lead with respect to features and driver support.
Long ago and with respect to a very old Direct3D version Carmack really did rip into Direct3D. OpenGL advocates like to refer to this but the truth is that in recent years Carmack has pointed out that these criticisms are obsolete, that Direct3D has improved greatly and is now good.
"Carmack: No, because the DX9 stuff--actually, DX9 is really quite a good API [application programming interface] level. Even with the D3D [Direct3D] side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step--they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility--and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with." http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm
Slashdot Mirror
"Sorry, but you are proving my point. The US did not take action against Iranian citizens, it interfered with internal politics"
If interfering with internal politics isn't interfering with civilians what is?
I think you need to ponder the difference between "take action against" and "interfere with". The former refers to things like attack, kidnap, etc.
Our agents did not attack Iranians, they supported one Iranian over another Iranian in a coup. It was the wrong thing to do, but not an act of war.
"Arguing that the US started "the war" with Iran is pretty far fetched. While the Iranian people have a legitimate grievance regarding US interference with Iran's internal politics, the US did not take action against them."
The US, and Britain, supported the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. The CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. encouraged General Fazlollah Zahedi, to overthrow Mosaddeq. Yes, the US did start the war.
Sorry, but you are proving my point. The US did not take action against Iranian citizens, it interfered with internal politics. Supporting one Iranian in a coup attempt is the latter, not the former. It was wrong, but it was not an act of war as is attacking an embassy, taking citizens hostage, etc. Again, the Iranians had a justifiable grievance but not a justification for war. Islamic radicalism is the aggressor, it has embraced war for decades.
Arguing that the US started "the war" with Iran is pretty far fetched. While the Iranian people have a legitimate grievance regarding US interference with Iran's internal politics, the US did not take action against them. The islamic radicals did take action against US citizens and the US embassy, hold US citizens hostage, and the islamic government sheltered and supported them and declared the US an enemy that must be destroyed. Radical islam started "the war".
I would go up through Alaska, through Russia via the Bering Sea.
Environmentalists would never allow the cable to go through Alaska. I'm sure it would have to touch some sort of pristine wilderness and the lawsuits would never end.
This may have been a brilliant move on Googles' part. Fully cooperate with the Chinese governments' "Great Firewall" until they could put themselves in a position to undermine that authority.
The Google office, all the data it collected on Chinese individuals, and one end of that cable all exist in Chinese territory. Google operates at the pleasure of the Chinese government. The day Google attempts to move against that government is the day all Google's property and data becomes property of the government and Google's employees are arrested.
You are assuming that google is not an NSA front. Think about it, they monitor and record your web browsing habits, your travel plans, they scan your email, they want you to use their online word processor, ... That wanting to know everything about you and your behaviors and interests for the purpose of directed commercial advertising is a beautiful front. ;-)
That's Jimmy Carter, the guy who was thrown up against an oil crisis and decided to do what any rational, thinking person would do: develop alternatives. And not start any wars. ;-)
Uh, Jimmy Carter invaded Iran. He went in with too few troops, and tried to micromanage things from Washington, and got our ass kicked. Of course you are correct in the sense that he did not start the war, the islamic fundamentalists started it and this same war is still going on today.
How many acres of desert ecosystem are plunged into permanent shade to provide this 64 megawatts of power?
Shade is a natural resource that many desert critters use to varying degrees. It is conceivable that this artificial shade may be of use to local critters. It may turn out to be an interesting thing for a biologist to study. Consider the old cars, plains, and ships that have been cleaned and sunk as artificial reefs.
We're actually going to start charging industries for the environmental cleanups that tax payers have to pay for? What a novel concept.
You pay either way, the cost shows up in your tax bill or your electric bill.
Space exploration will remain in the control of politicians and bureaucrats forever unless a new means of propulsion is developed outside of their influence. The fuel if nothing else has to come from somewhere that is under governmental control.
...
There is a lot of "fuel" "in space". Oxygen, hydrogen, methane,
Nope, not true. I've been interviewed on camera for news stories and have never been asked to sign any kind of release for the use of my image.
If you are voluntarily talking to a TV news crew with cameras running there may be implied consent with respect to a model release. A "contract" does not have to be signed to be valid, performance of terms can be just as good as a signature depending on the circumstances.
My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?
Myself and many others will doing everything we can to encourage the government to go and get you. We have to find some way to get NASA properly funded, perhaps the collection of fees and taxes will work.
All she did for the project was deal with some logistics and prepare the powerpoint slides.
... the kingdom was lost. If that's too antiquated, for the want of a telephone sanitizer ... the planet was lost. ;-)
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail
launch from international waters, it'd take a lot of work building the platform, but it would be worth it.
Actually, being in international waters may make it easier to stop you. You are subject to maritime/admiralty/sea laws, and pretty much any warship has some authority over you.
Anyone who has the technical capability to do a moon shot can safely ignore this. What are they going to say, that their launch doesn't count because it wasn't authorized?
You were planning on returning? While the international treaty may not carry much weight the FAA (assuming US) regulations being violated surely will. You will lose your pilots license, the spaceport you launched from will probably lose it license, expect to be fined, expect your company to be fined (assuming your space venture is not purely a purely personal endeavor), etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sort of criminal charges the government could arrange as well for interfering with treaties, ignoring military authority (assuming they have to approve launches), etc.
Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.'
...
:-)
And so the seeds of colonialism are sown
It's a little strange when you can't quite figure out if a thought is the result of having read too much history or too much science fiction.
Whether or not cameras -- real OR fake vs none at all has any effect on crime rate is a separate and independent analysis, but I'd say its highly unlikely, since the basic function of a deterrent is to increase risk, which clearly isn't the case here.
There is no clarity here. You can not say the risk is unchanged unless the amount and nature of crime are also unchanged. If the amount or nature have changed that suggests a deterrent effect. The percentage of cases closed tells us nothing about these other variables.
Presumably that question has also been addressed, since it is an obvious one to raise.
Given the politics and emotion of this topic I believe that is a very dangerous assumption. Advocates of a position are highly likely to misuse statistics to forward their agenda.
Politicians will simply ignore the facts and press ahead.
Many around here misrepresent and ignore facts as well. That and they have emotional poorly thought out reactions that are rooted more in their politics than it logic. Note the statement:
"The study found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any."
If you apply a modest amount of logic it might occur to you that everything seems to be described in terms of percentages. The fact the percentages may be similar does not mean cameras are ineffective. What is the volume of crime? The absence of such info should make an unbiased reader quite suspicious. Also what were the volumes before the cameras? One of the stated goals of the camera systems is that they would be a deterrent. The volume of crime could be a fraction of pre-camera days and the percentage of solved crimes could be the same.
I find it incredible that anyone would consider purchasing defense equipment from the USA after this.
When you look at modern air combat and notice how those equipped with US aircraft tend to stay in the air and their opponents equipped with Russian/French/etc aircraft(*) tend to go down in balls of flame I think you will not find it so incredible.
(*) While pilot training is more important than the aircraft, those purchasing US aircraft tend to get pretty good training as well. The US has a track record of training both friends and future enemies pretty well. While Russia has expert pilots, Russia tends not to train others to their level. They are a little more paranoid for some reason, might be the one or two invasions per century.
No, I think the most likely meaning of "code" is "source code". The software that runs inside the radar.
No, you are engaging in a geek bias. Politicians would refer to source code as programming, code almost certainly refers to cryptographic data. I expect that we are talking about cryptographic keys needed to decode the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) signals of combat aircraft.
I suspect Australia(disclaimer Im Australian) thought that as the US and Australia are very close allies the USAF might give us the ability to use the aircraft we purchased.
:-)
I see your problem. The F/A-18 is not a US Air Force aircraft, it is a US Navy aircraft. You went knocking on the wrong door.
Going from something along the lines of "this is the one true path" to something like "there is more than one way to do this" sounds like the opposite of assimilation. :-)
It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time.
Support for OpenGL is not being removed, the Mac version will use it. This is not about OpenGL, this is about Linux gaming. Years ago id made an infamous comment in a Game Developer magazine interview, sorry no link - read the hard copy at the time. They said that there is no business justifcation for their Linux clients, that they merely do them because they think it is cool to do so. Perhaps they don't have enough time for this "hobby" anymore.
Keep in mind that the Linux game market is far smaller than most people think. It is not the number of people who buy the Linux version of the game. Given that most Linux gamers are willing to buy the Win32 version of a game and dual boot or emulate, a Linux sale is cannibalism. It replaces a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, it does not generate new income. The only new income is a sale to those who refuse to dual boot or emulate, who will only play native Linux versions. This native group is considered by many developers to be too small to justify the expenses related to porting, testing, and support.
That said, Linux based servers are an entirely different story. These make financial sense.
Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.
For many years Direct3D has had a substantial lead with respect to features and driver support.
Long ago and with respect to a very old Direct3D version Carmack really did rip into Direct3D. OpenGL advocates like to refer to this but the truth is that in recent years Carmack has pointed out that these criticisms are obsolete, that Direct3D has improved greatly and is now good.
"Carmack: No, because the DX9 stuff--actually, DX9 is really quite a good API [application programming interface] level. Even with the D3D [Direct3D] side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step--they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility--and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm