And of course, P&G is the largest consumer goods company on the planet. Toothpaste, soap, washing powder, etc, etc. etc, Just like Miscrosoft, they can afford to blow a few million on a hare-brained scheme, on the off chance tha t it will be profitable down the road.
Oh,I agree. But we seem to have entered an era where everything must work 100%, first time every time, or it is completely useless and risks being shut down.
It seems people have forgotten the concept of testing, prototypes, and initial failures.
Ok, what else shall I name that 'didn't work 100% the first time out':
A-A missiles ICBMs
The entire space program
A-A missile defense (chaff & flares)
Tanks
etc, etc, etc
All govt funded
And FYI, the govt was early on funding the whole aircraft thing. Who did the Wright bros sell their first aircraft to? (Army Signal Corps) Where was it delivered? (Ft Myers, VA)
Who was the first fatality in an aircraft crash? (Lt. Thomas Selfridge)
For defense, you need to be able to shoot planes down reliably. For terror, even a rare hit would be sufficient.
True, but does that mean you shouldn't try to defend against such threats?
Why would a terrorist need more than a single hit? It seems to me that there are lots of vital structures on an airplane that, when hit by a single bullet, could cause serious problems.
Have you ever watched aircraft coming in to land? Trying to hit a specific spot with a single bullet would be amazingly hard. If it is landing, it is already landing. Taking out an engine, given a good pilot, would cause a serious pucker factor, but no crash. And remember...you have to take out this engine with one bullet. If it is taking off, just about all civilian airliners can continue the climb minus an engine. Climbing out of range. Again, raising the pucker factor, but no crash.
Neither do illusions that an overpriced ray-gun is going to make air traffic safer.
Say that again after the first airliner is shot down by a MANPAD.
I'm concerned about false negatives as well. Face it....this thing will NOT be perfect the first time out. IIRC, the Patriot system shot down a British Tornado, mistaking it for a hostile aircraft.
A false negative will be almost as bad as a false positive. "It didn't detect that missile, the airliner got shot down, 300 people dead, $25B wasted....SHUT THE SYSTEM DOWN!"
Which country did we invade to cause the 9/11 attacks?
The standard (misguided) answer to that is Saudi Arabia. We have troops stationed there, some factions don't want that. Therefore, the US should be attacked until we accede to their demands completely.
Given what we have seen of insurgent guerilla tactics in Iraq, popping RPGs at departing flights would bring do wn a plane. Perhaps not everyone on board will get killed because of the low altitude, but terrorism is all about terrorizing a population. That laser shield isn't going to do much, is it?
It's not a 'shield' (dome) over the airport.
"Northrop described Skyguard as capable of destroying rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles. Against shoulder-fired missiles, which are relatively easy to heat with a laser and destroy, the protective shield would extend to a 20-kilometer radius"
Or they would just go to Japan and knock down a plane bound for the United States.
""If it goes that path, it's a very large market," he said, citing potential demand from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and what he called virtually any country facing a threat from a neighbor."
Is it 100% ready for full, zero defect deployment? Probably not. But then neither were aircraft, at first. Nor cars. Nor microwave ovens. Nor pretty much anything you can name.
Give it time. Some of these defense mechanisms WILL work. And work quite well.
(like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)
The cartoon is the ad. The "ad" of which you speak is merely the phone number (to get mommy) to call, or the store to go to. Were you asleep in the meeting?
As a child, my parents didnt disalow me from watching R rated films, filter my internet and such. And yet, some how, im just as normal and sane as next person (and I never shot up my school or anything!). I fail to understand why parents want to censor what their children want to see....
Really. So you think every every movie is appropriate for every kid at any age? Hardcore rape scenes appropriate for a 5 year old? Gangbangs appropriate for an impressionable 11 year old? Graphic murder scenes appropriate for a kid whose grandparent just passed away?
One day, you will have kids, and you will see just how silly your statement sounds.
Personally, I applaud the judge's ruling. I don't need these ultra-conservative idiots "cleaning" my movies before I watch 'em, just as I don't need a nanny to supervise everything I do. I'm 34 for chrissakes, let me live my life as I wish, stop trying to "protect" me from all the world's "evils".
You could just, you know...go somewhere, anywhere, everywhere else and buy the regular version.
Honestly, I don't understand the hatred that people have for these things.
It just feels sneaky. Not even counting the rebates that you fail to get back for one reason or another, but why should I, an individual, loan a billion dollar company $50 for a couple of months? So that they can gain the aggregate interest on $50 x 10,000? Screw that. Just sell me the item, and lose the rebate.
There is an argumenent in the UK at the moment about deporting and extraditing people to nations who have poor human rights records. I think a nation who imprisons people without trial and without legal representation is a perfect example.
Or, we could just bypass the whole sham trial thing, and just shoot him, like the Brazilian kid.
Not trying to be funny or flippant, but nowhere has a perfect record on these things.
I buy very few things. My appartment has one bed...
Wait til you have a spouse, kids, and a house. The kids will completely take over the upstairs, your loving spouse will dominate the downstairs, and you, the patriarch of your little clan, will be relegated to the garage. Where 1/2 of the available space will be taken up with kid stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what I'd like to see. A washing machine that, whence done washing, starts drying the clothes!!!
Here ya go. 10 sec on google...
And of course, P&G is the largest consumer goods company on the planet. Toothpaste, soap, washing powder, etc, etc. etc, Just like Miscrosoft, they can afford to blow a few million on a hare-brained scheme, on the off chance tha t it will be profitable down the road.
Oh,I agree. But we seem to have entered an era where everything must work 100%, first time every time, or it is completely useless and risks being shut down.
It seems people have forgotten the concept of testing, prototypes, and initial failures.
Ok, what else shall I name that 'didn't work 100% the first time out':
A-A missiles
ICBMs
The entire space program
A-A missile defense (chaff & flares)
Tanks
etc, etc, etc
All govt funded
And FYI, the govt was early on funding the whole aircraft thing. Who did the Wright bros sell their first aircraft to? (Army Signal Corps)
Where was it delivered? (Ft Myers, VA)
Who was the first fatality in an aircraft crash? (Lt. Thomas Selfridge)
For defense, you need to be able to shoot planes down reliably. For terror, even a rare hit would be sufficient.
True, but does that mean you shouldn't try to defend against such threats?
Why would a terrorist need more than a single hit? It seems to me that there are lots of vital structures on an airplane that, when hit by a single bullet, could cause serious problems.
Have you ever watched aircraft coming in to land? Trying to hit a specific spot with a single bullet would be amazingly hard.
If it is landing, it is already landing. Taking out an engine, given a good pilot, would cause a serious pucker factor, but no crash. And remember...you have to take out this engine with one bullet.
If it is taking off, just about all civilian airliners can continue the climb minus an engine. Climbing out of range. Again, raising the pucker factor, but no crash.
Neither do illusions that an overpriced ray-gun is going to make air traffic safer.
Say that again after the first airliner is shot down by a MANPAD.
I'm concerned about false negatives as well. Face it....this thing will NOT be perfect the first time out. IIRC, the Patriot system shot down a British Tornado, mistaking it for a hostile aircraft.
A false negative will be almost as bad as a false positive.
"It didn't detect that missile, the airliner got shot down, 300 people dead, $25B wasted....SHUT THE SYSTEM DOWN!"
Which country did we invade to cause the 9/11 attacks?
The standard (misguided) answer to that is Saudi Arabia. We have troops stationed there, some factions don't want that. Therefore, the US should be attacked until we accede to their demands completely.
Given what we have seen of insurgent guerilla tactics in Iraq, popping RPGs at departing flights would bring do wn a plane. Perhaps not everyone on board will get killed because of the low altitude, but terrorism is all about terrorizing a population. That laser shield isn't going to do much, is it?
It's not a 'shield' (dome) over the airport.
"Northrop described Skyguard as capable of destroying rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles. Against shoulder-fired missiles, which are relatively easy to heat with a laser and destroy, the protective shield would extend to a 20-kilometer radius"
Or they would just go to Japan and knock down a plane bound for the United States.
""If it goes that path, it's a very large market," he said, citing potential demand from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and what he called virtually any country facing a threat from a neighbor."
Is it 100% ready for full, zero defect deployment? Probably not. But then neither were aircraft, at first. Nor cars. Nor microwave ovens. Nor pretty much anything you can name.
Give it time. Some of these defense mechanisms WILL work. And work quite well.
It would be cheaper and easier if America and Israel fixed their foreign policies so that they'd bully less people and make less enemies.
Of course. Because you CAN please all of the people all of the time.
I guess they're just running true to form, though. They allow OTB and lotteries online, because they can tax those.
Ok, I get the whole "pay a bit more because it's a GoodThing(TM)" concept, but as a marketing strategy it stinks (forgive the pathetic pun).
Just like hybrid cars. Pay more, but bask in the glow of personal 'greenness'.
Just out of curiosity, can you name one successfull thing that isn't praying on the clueless ?
Linux. (although the success is debateable)
Yes...most successful things do prey on the clueless. Just not so much and so blatently.
It's only 'wrong' because it is preying on the clueless. Kids cartoons or MySpace videos...no difference.
Should the viewers have more clue? Yeah, maybe. But they don't. And won't. And there are always new ones coming along to take their place.
(like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)
The cartoon is the ad. The "ad" of which you speak is merely the phone number (to get mommy) to call, or the store to go to. Were you asleep in the meeting?
You dont see gangbangs and rapes in R rated movies fyi....
[from the grandparent]
I fail to understand why parents want to censor what their children want to see....
Filtering everything above 'R' is parental censoring. Just at a different level.
Virginia. You can own, but not use.
As a child, my parents didnt disalow me from watching R rated films, filter my internet and such. And yet, some how, im just as normal and sane as next person (and I never shot up my school or anything!). I fail to understand why parents want to censor what their children want to see....
Really. So you think every every movie is appropriate for every kid at any age?
Hardcore rape scenes appropriate for a 5 year old? Gangbangs appropriate for an impressionable 11 year old? Graphic murder scenes appropriate for a kid whose grandparent just passed away?
One day, you will have kids, and you will see just how silly your statement sounds.
Personally, I applaud the judge's ruling. I don't need these ultra-conservative idiots "cleaning" my movies before I watch 'em, just as I don't need a nanny to supervise everything I do. I'm 34 for chrissakes, let me live my life as I wish, stop trying to "protect" me from all the world's "evils".
You could just, you know...go somewhere, anywhere, everywhere else and buy the regular version.
In short, when will we grow a thick skin and not pander to the 'family-friendly' minority?
So you're saying I shouldn't be able to buy a 'clean' copy if I want to?
Linking to an Oracle db from Access is no less trivial than linking from SQLServer or Excel.
Honestly, I don't understand the hatred that people have for these things.
It just feels sneaky. Not even counting the rebates that you fail to get back for one reason or another, but why should I, an individual, loan a billion dollar company $50 for a couple of months? So that they can gain the aggregate interest on $50 x 10,000? Screw that.
Just sell me the item, and lose the rebate.
There is an argumenent in the UK at the moment about deporting and extraditing people to nations who have poor human rights records. I think a nation who imprisons people without trial and without legal representation is a perfect example.
Or, we could just bypass the whole sham trial thing, and just shoot him, like the Brazilian kid.
Not trying to be funny or flippant, but nowhere has a perfect record on these things.
Add to that random capitalization. And someone should find him some quotation marks.
I buy very few things. My appartment has one bed...
Wait til you have a spouse, kids, and a house.
The kids will completely take over the upstairs, your loving spouse will dominate the downstairs, and you, the patriarch of your little clan, will be relegated to the garage. Where 1/2 of the available space will be taken up with kid stuff.