It is their money. They earned it. Don't take it from them after they earned it. If you don't like how they earned it, change the rules for the next set of companies coming up. More likely your rules will prevent any new ones though.
There is plenty evidence showing the current problem is from government intervention in getting banks to make loans to people that are overly risky.
The idea of a "free market", what it is, what it means, and how it works, is much older than the Bush and Reagan presidencies. IIRC the modern idea traces back to the 1700s in England.
It is not a belief or a religion. It is the historically proven most effective way for people to organize and be productive. Every other system has either not worked or been markedly less effective.
I hope the connection between the incredible increase in productivity and lives saved in countries with relatively free markets is understood by you.
The federal government doesn't need authority for this to work. Individual states can collaborate if need be.
The article mentions how someone from Texas was able to build new transmission lines and he wants the federal government to assist in some way, but the article isn't clear in how he wants the government to assist.
It sounds like the real problem is it is too difficult regulation/legal wise to build more transmission lines. Let's make it easier.
Apple still had good mojo going for them when they were on the previous Mac OS. Back when their hardware was almost entirely inferior. Back when Macs cost more. Back when they had two things going for them. Consistancy in their UI and Steve Jobs conning everyone.
It works for Apple. Especially so in the late 90s and early 2000s. Apple rarely has something new. Usually their products are old and marketed better than the last company to try it.
Without normal news stories and the AP, the blogosphere will place a greater value on bloggers doing original reporting leading to a greater number of bloggers doing original reporting.
I'm on board with what you're saying as well. I'm guessing its only true feature is the ability to SMS complete strangers in a style reminiscent of an IRC chatroom.
Again you are still having the same problem of getting the missile into close enough range of the B-2 for the "heat seeker" or "phased array radar" to actually target and track it on its own. I don't think missiles are even using an AESA type of radar; they are using the older mechanical kind for active homing or are merely PESA. A PESA won't be able to pick anything up from the B-2 since it isn't sending any of its own signals out and the B-2 is likely to bounce any signal from the ground or the air off into an unknown direction.
A missile attacking from above would need to be very large, very expensive, and not very mobile. Those qualities make it very killable. Part of the necesity for the size and expense is the amount of fuel and speed needed to get high above the B-2, probably flying at 40,000 ft. We're also making an assumption that it is not stealthy from the top, which is doubtful.
Also most AWACS are usng mechanical RADAR and not AESA. I'm assuming it is because of the technical difficulties and expense of trying to make a conformal AESA for a larger plane.
In any case most proposals to consistantly and reliably shoot down a B-2 are so expensive and vulnerable it can only be described as excellent if an adversary were to inefficiently sink the resources into building it.
IR is limited in its tracking ability. IR missiles are generally short range. OTH radar detects at extremely long ranges. The B-2's IR reductions are enough to keep it safe from most threats or the threats can be flown around.
Trying to bring this back to the over the horizon piece. The IR is probably reduced enough to render a shot directed by an OTH radar (if IR missiles can even be directed via such a radar) such a low chance at hitting a B-2 as it would be equivalent to winning the lottery.
The bomber flies high and the missile seeker would be coming from below. The B2 has IR reducing measures as part of its design. Also the OTH radar doesn't do ranging very well or even what kind of object its seeing well. It generally has a rough bearing and rough distance. No altitude, nor exact distance. In other words it can't give enough information to an IR or active missile for targeting.
Also the weapon systems that guide in on the aircraft need a more accurate radar than the over the horizon radar you are talking about. So the aircraft can be seen and kind of followed the weapons won't be able to "lock on".
Link the youtube video of it, don't just claim it exists or tell me to search for it. This is the web and it is easy to provide links.
Where's the article claiming they are so bad that UN observers won't certify them? Again, links please.
You have made these statements without any obvious facts to back this up. The burden is upon you to cite your sources. Further I hope you will include some kind of information indicating the UN observers were asked to certify the process and had the information required to make an initial assesment.
My perception is nothing is truly changing. Give the "oversight" group a say in the punishment and then you might have something effective. If the oversight group has no power except to show what we already know (CCP interfers unfairly in the game) there won't be a change. Since there is no power vested in the group perception won't change. This is just another feel good move by CCP.
It's a game. CCP is putting even more burden on their customers. Paying customers. CCP should be taking care of this not their paying customers. CCP provides a services to their customers and is paid to do so. The customers should not be responsible for making sure CCP doesn't cheat.
I quit. I cancelled my two accounts. This won't bring me back.
The choice in those two identically performing chips is: watching BluRay and not watching BluRay. The one with the restrictions will let you watch BluRay. I bet most people will choose the restricted one.
I doubt it has anything to do with what we are missing as opposed to optimizing for what kind of hardware exists currently. I imagine current parallel techniques have relatively speaking low overhead and to take advantage of computers with high processor accounts you move to higher overhead methods that can take advantage of more of the processing power.
The game you describe is very much how EVE Online works out in 0.0 space. You build space stations and they can be taken away. When they are taken away you no longer have access to that space. In order to keep those space stations and defend them there is a lot of logistics involved that needs defending (aka supply lines). Stick with EVE Online on out into 0.0 claimable space and you have the game you want.
To support thousands and thousands of concurrent users and many servers with different rules yes. If you want to run *A* server it would probably be handled by a couple of boxes from a hosting service.
EVE Online is almost entirely player driven. The story CCP (the company that makes the game) has is influenced by players. Epic wars and stories unfold all the time and it is all player built. WoW just isn't built with a structure to let this type of thing happen.
Slashdot Mirror
If you hate it so much, don't buy their product. They would get the message really quick then.
It is their money. They earned it. Don't take it from them after they earned it. If you don't like how they earned it, change the rules for the next set of companies coming up. More likely your rules will prevent any new ones though.
There is plenty evidence showing the current problem is from government intervention in getting banks to make loans to people that are overly risky. The idea of a "free market", what it is, what it means, and how it works, is much older than the Bush and Reagan presidencies. IIRC the modern idea traces back to the 1700s in England. It is not a belief or a religion. It is the historically proven most effective way for people to organize and be productive. Every other system has either not worked or been markedly less effective. I hope the connection between the incredible increase in productivity and lives saved in countries with relatively free markets is understood by you.
The federal government doesn't need authority for this to work. Individual states can collaborate if need be. The article mentions how someone from Texas was able to build new transmission lines and he wants the federal government to assist in some way, but the article isn't clear in how he wants the government to assist. It sounds like the real problem is it is too difficult regulation/legal wise to build more transmission lines. Let's make it easier.
Apple still had good mojo going for them when they were on the previous Mac OS. Back when their hardware was almost entirely inferior. Back when Macs cost more. Back when they had two things going for them. Consistancy in their UI and Steve Jobs conning everyone.
It works for Apple. Especially so in the late 90s and early 2000s. Apple rarely has something new. Usually their products are old and marketed better than the last company to try it.
Without normal news stories and the AP, the blogosphere will place a greater value on bloggers doing original reporting leading to a greater number of bloggers doing original reporting.
I'm on board with what you're saying as well. I'm guessing its only true feature is the ability to SMS complete strangers in a style reminiscent of an IRC chatroom.
Again you are still having the same problem of getting the missile into close enough range of the B-2 for the "heat seeker" or "phased array radar" to actually target and track it on its own. I don't think missiles are even using an AESA type of radar; they are using the older mechanical kind for active homing or are merely PESA. A PESA won't be able to pick anything up from the B-2 since it isn't sending any of its own signals out and the B-2 is likely to bounce any signal from the ground or the air off into an unknown direction. A missile attacking from above would need to be very large, very expensive, and not very mobile. Those qualities make it very killable. Part of the necesity for the size and expense is the amount of fuel and speed needed to get high above the B-2, probably flying at 40,000 ft. We're also making an assumption that it is not stealthy from the top, which is doubtful. Also most AWACS are usng mechanical RADAR and not AESA. I'm assuming it is because of the technical difficulties and expense of trying to make a conformal AESA for a larger plane. In any case most proposals to consistantly and reliably shoot down a B-2 are so expensive and vulnerable it can only be described as excellent if an adversary were to inefficiently sink the resources into building it.
IR is limited in its tracking ability. IR missiles are generally short range. OTH radar detects at extremely long ranges. The B-2's IR reductions are enough to keep it safe from most threats or the threats can be flown around.
Trying to bring this back to the over the horizon piece. The IR is probably reduced enough to render a shot directed by an OTH radar (if IR missiles can even be directed via such a radar) such a low chance at hitting a B-2 as it would be equivalent to winning the lottery.
The bomber flies high and the missile seeker would be coming from below. The B2 has IR reducing measures as part of its design. Also the OTH radar doesn't do ranging very well or even what kind of object its seeing well. It generally has a rough bearing and rough distance. No altitude, nor exact distance. In other words it can't give enough information to an IR or active missile for targeting.
Also the weapon systems that guide in on the aircraft need a more accurate radar than the over the horizon radar you are talking about. So the aircraft can be seen and kind of followed the weapons won't be able to "lock on".
Link the youtube video of it, don't just claim it exists or tell me to search for it. This is the web and it is easy to provide links. Where's the article claiming they are so bad that UN observers won't certify them? Again, links please. You have made these statements without any obvious facts to back this up. The burden is upon you to cite your sources. Further I hope you will include some kind of information indicating the UN observers were asked to certify the process and had the information required to make an initial assesment.
A person I knew worked at a Starbucks and said to me, "People really are like that. Every one of them." lulz.
There already are fuel air bomb's like the one from Zero Hour.
The article makes it sound like it is now called the MDA. Missile Defense Agency.
I didn't see that the group would have any extra powers. They only get to view what's happening.
My perception is nothing is truly changing. Give the "oversight" group a say in the punishment and then you might have something effective. If the oversight group has no power except to show what we already know (CCP interfers unfairly in the game) there won't be a change. Since there is no power vested in the group perception won't change. This is just another feel good move by CCP.
It's a game. CCP is putting even more burden on their customers. Paying customers. CCP should be taking care of this not their paying customers. CCP provides a services to their customers and is paid to do so. The customers should not be responsible for making sure CCP doesn't cheat. I quit. I cancelled my two accounts. This won't bring me back.
The choice in those two identically performing chips is: watching BluRay and not watching BluRay. The one with the restrictions will let you watch BluRay. I bet most people will choose the restricted one.
I doubt it has anything to do with what we are missing as opposed to optimizing for what kind of hardware exists currently. I imagine current parallel techniques have relatively speaking low overhead and to take advantage of computers with high processor accounts you move to higher overhead methods that can take advantage of more of the processing power.
The game you describe is very much how EVE Online works out in 0.0 space. You build space stations and they can be taken away. When they are taken away you no longer have access to that space. In order to keep those space stations and defend them there is a lot of logistics involved that needs defending (aka supply lines). Stick with EVE Online on out into 0.0 claimable space and you have the game you want.
To support thousands and thousands of concurrent users and many servers with different rules yes. If you want to run *A* server it would probably be handled by a couple of boxes from a hosting service.
EVE Online is almost entirely player driven. The story CCP (the company that makes the game) has is influenced by players. Epic wars and stories unfold all the time and it is all player built. WoW just isn't built with a structure to let this type of thing happen.