Drones are great at some roles, bad at others. Having capable manned STOVL aircraft in addition to drones makes a lot of sense when you don't know what you're going to get into.
The US has built aircraft that were very successful in their appointed roles. The US has also built aircraft that suck in their appointed roles, some of which were successfully switched to other roles. Cherry-picking successes and claiming that every US aircraft should therefore be a big success is pointless.
When put up against current fighters, some F-18 variant as I recall, it failed miserably. The excuse (for lack of a better word) for the failure was that the radar defeating paint, new electronics, and high output engine was not yet installed.
Okay, it didn't have the engine it was designed for, and it doesn't perform as well as desired? Isn't that what you'd expect?
To me that just says they forgot lessons learned long ago that a dogfighter aircraft needs to first be able to dogfight
That attitude got a lot of Allied fighter pilots killed against the Japanese fighters, which were designed for dogfighting and were very good at it. Chennault, with the Flying Tigers, came up with good tactics early: get an altitude advantage, dive through the formation shooting at a fighter, keep diving until disengaged, rinse and repeat.
(e.g. getting the police to raid Gizmodo after they legally acquired a pre-release iPhone)
Nope; at that point the phone was stolen property.
Assuming the person taking the phone didn't, say, assist the engineer in losing the phone, the person had three legal choices of who to give the phone to: the owner, the place where it was lost, and the police. Selling the thing to Gizmodo for $5K was certainly illegal and probably a felony. Buying it may have been a felony, and was certainly illegal.
Meh: it's just a phone. An expensive one, sure, but still just a phone.
With, according to TFS, sensitive information on it. If it hadn't been for that, all the video would have done is screwed up a carefully planned marketing campaign.
The government generally has a much more pragmatic attitude
If you're referring to inadvertent mishandling of classified information, the government doesn't prosecute for the reason you give. Firing someone or revoking a clearance is considered a reasonable punishment, although it doesn't always happen. (This is from what I was able to find out.)
Also, this would not be considered inadvertent mishandling, since the video was intentionally made and put on Youtube. Do this with classified information and you will find yourself in prison.
Hey, at least you don't have to jump through hoops to be a pedantic asshole...
You don't know very much about us, do you? The hoops we have to jump through. Knowing the difference between similar words, knowing what "affect" means as a noun and "effect" as a verb, that's just the start.
Doubling what specification? Use a cement pillar of twice the cross-section and you get twice the strength. (Or something like that. I'm not a civil engineer.) This is a case where you can just make up for ignorance by using more stuff.
You can't do that in software. If you add additional code, you're adding to the attack surface. It may make the application more secure, but not necessarily.
FWIW, this is not my experience with Agile, although this is admittedly only at one company. The company taking this seriously and trying to do it right might have something to do with that.
In Perl, it's easy to write an expression that they call a regular expression that will do arbitrary matches. For example, it can recognize bababab, baabaabaab, baaabaaabaaab, and on to infinity. Context-free grammars can't do that. We're talking context-sensitive grammars.
Your description of Agile is not a description of good Agile.
If you're using Agile correctly, you're not micromanaging and developers look at the overall project. That sounds like really bad management. perhaps you're using a variant of Scrum where the manager is the Scrum master, comes up with stories himself or herself (instead of involving the developers), and evaluates the developers on the basis of whether they do exactly what the manager wants.
It's copyrighted, at least in all Bern signatories. Trust me.
Digital video is sufficiently recent that none of it will have come out of copyright yet, and in order to be used it has to be in a fixed form, which means it's automatically copyrighted.
If you don't like current copyright treaties, I certainly understand, but that's the law as it stands.
The mistakes are possible because they aren't always mistakes.
How do you prevent SQL injection? Putting user input into other strings is a reasonable thing to do. Passing a string to the database is a reasonable thing to do. It would be a pain to use parameterized SQL for everything, and I don't know of a database that does.
There's ways to sanitize a user-entered string so it can't be used for cross-site scripting. Make that mandatory for using user-entered strings and you'll break some other stuff.
Most of the common errors have solutions that require a certain amount of judgment.
In the movies, they had photon torpedoes as devices put into something and launched. They didn't appear to have their own propulsion, so presumably they were fired at the enemy at very high speed.
And what about the thing Kirk built in the episode with the Gorn?
That's true regardless of whether Trump or Clinton or Superman is President (OK, Superman's not native born...).
Getting a new job is going to be hard, and technologically displaced people need serious assistance.
However, Trump's the one talking about getting the mines open again and the coal mining jobs back, and that very simply isn't going to happen, and Trump doesn't want it to anyway. That gives false hope, and diverts people's attention from what needs to be done to help these people.
Fundamentally, the ability of someone with few skills to make a decent living just by working hard is going away, and isn't coming back.
Apple Care, like all insurance, is priced so that it will be a loss for the average person. The only times you should buy insurance are when you can't afford a loss (a house fire, for example, or injuring someone in an auto accident) or when you think the insurance is underpriced. If you can spend $200 for a year of protection, you can almost certainly replace your iPhone X if you have to.
Nope. Mathematics is a language to describe what we've observed of the universe. It's been a very, very good description with lots of predictive power..It doesn't rely on physics. Physics isn't based on mathematical principles. It's based on a set of mathematical axioms and their consequences. When we find a problem with mathematical predictions in physics, the fault isn't the mathematics. The fault is that we're using the wrong axioms, and we've corrected those many, many times. There could be a part of physics that isn't explainable mathematically, for some reason I can't conceive of right now, but even that would not be a failure of mathematics.
You are completely correct when it comes to actual employment in most of the US (there may be states that aren't at will) - assuming, of course, that the cause isn't illegitimate, such as union activity, refusal of sexual favors, that sort of thing (and that's darn hard to prove).
However, I'm talking about whether the former employees are eligible for unemployment benefits. If fired for cause, ineligible. If voluntarily quit, ineligible. If dismissed without cause, eligible. Ineligible is financially better for the company.
Solar City fired the employees for cause, which would appear to make them ineligible. The employees can contest the firing for cause (they can't contest the firing). Unless the employer has some paper trail of trying to work with the employees, the ruling is almost certainly going to be that the employee is eligible for benefits.
There are still reasonable Republican constituents out there, and they've got to be appalled at some of the things Trump's been doing. The authoritarian base is fine with him.
This is partly a culture war, and Trump's on the losing side. Demographically, this is the last hurrah of the white Christian majority, and the evangelical churches are going to lose younger members because of their position on Trump. (They've started on the same downslide as the mainstream Christian community, just later.)
Yes, but you're describing what would be ideal (and attainable if the Spanish government allowed it), and I don't see such a thing happening in reality.
We're talking about a century and a half here, at which time science and technology would have diffused well.
The problems with the French Air Force were largely political. I've also been told that the move to WWII-style fighters, with more powerful engines and guns, and stressed-aluminum fuselages, resulted in maintenance crises during the transition. I was told that both the French and Soviet crises happened for the German invasions.
The French weapons were pretty much on a par with other countries' weapons. The big problems were bad deployment and a bad mobile warfare doctrine. The main problem with French tanks was the specifications they were designed for. German armored doctrine wasn't perfect, but it was a lot closer than anyone else's (at least since Stalin purged the Red Army proponents of "Deep Battle"). Arguably, had France had a stronger electronics industry, French tanks could have had radios, which would have improved their effectiveness significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
Drones are great at some roles, bad at others. Having capable manned STOVL aircraft in addition to drones makes a lot of sense when you don't know what you're going to get into.
No need. Health insurance is part of the general welfare, and Congress is explicitly allowed to tax and spend for the general welfare.
The US has built aircraft that were very successful in their appointed roles. The US has also built aircraft that suck in their appointed roles, some of which were successfully switched to other roles. Cherry-picking successes and claiming that every US aircraft should therefore be a big success is pointless.
Okay, it didn't have the engine it was designed for, and it doesn't perform as well as desired? Isn't that what you'd expect?
That attitude got a lot of Allied fighter pilots killed against the Japanese fighters, which were designed for dogfighting and were very good at it. Chennault, with the Flying Tigers, came up with good tactics early: get an altitude advantage, dive through the formation shooting at a fighter, keep diving until disengaged, rinse and repeat.
Nope; at that point the phone was stolen property.
Assuming the person taking the phone didn't, say, assist the engineer in losing the phone, the person had three legal choices of who to give the phone to: the owner, the place where it was lost, and the police. Selling the thing to Gizmodo for $5K was certainly illegal and probably a felony. Buying it may have been a felony, and was certainly illegal.
With, according to TFS, sensitive information on it. If it hadn't been for that, all the video would have done is screwed up a carefully planned marketing campaign.
If you're referring to inadvertent mishandling of classified information, the government doesn't prosecute for the reason you give. Firing someone or revoking a clearance is considered a reasonable punishment, although it doesn't always happen. (This is from what I was able to find out.)
Also, this would not be considered inadvertent mishandling, since the video was intentionally made and put on Youtube. Do this with classified information and you will find yourself in prison.
Do we know that no harm was done? TFS says the video revealed sensitive information.
You don't know very much about us, do you? The hoops we have to jump through. Knowing the difference between similar words, knowing what "affect" means as a noun and "effect" as a verb, that's just the start.
Except that hitting the "submit" button is the only way to see mistakes in what you've written. That's my experience, anyway.
In other words, no matter how strict and important the secrecy is, don't do anything to the guy that leaked big-time?
Doubling what specification? Use a cement pillar of twice the cross-section and you get twice the strength. (Or something like that. I'm not a civil engineer.) This is a case where you can just make up for ignorance by using more stuff.
You can't do that in software. If you add additional code, you're adding to the attack surface. It may make the application more secure, but not necessarily.
FWIW, this is not my experience with Agile, although this is admittedly only at one company. The company taking this seriously and trying to do it right might have something to do with that.
In Perl, it's easy to write an expression that they call a regular expression that will do arbitrary matches. For example, it can recognize bababab, baabaabaab, baaabaaabaaab, and on to infinity. Context-free grammars can't do that. We're talking context-sensitive grammars.
Your description of Agile is not a description of good Agile.
If you're using Agile correctly, you're not micromanaging and developers look at the overall project. That sounds like really bad management. perhaps you're using a variant of Scrum where the manager is the Scrum master, comes up with stories himself or herself (instead of involving the developers), and evaluates the developers on the basis of whether they do exactly what the manager wants.
It's copyrighted, at least in all Bern signatories. Trust me.
Digital video is sufficiently recent that none of it will have come out of copyright yet, and in order to be used it has to be in a fixed form, which means it's automatically copyrighted.
If you don't like current copyright treaties, I certainly understand, but that's the law as it stands.
The mistakes are possible because they aren't always mistakes.
How do you prevent SQL injection? Putting user input into other strings is a reasonable thing to do. Passing a string to the database is a reasonable thing to do. It would be a pain to use parameterized SQL for everything, and I don't know of a database that does.
There's ways to sanitize a user-entered string so it can't be used for cross-site scripting. Make that mandatory for using user-entered strings and you'll break some other stuff.
Most of the common errors have solutions that require a certain amount of judgment.
In the movies, they had photon torpedoes as devices put into something and launched. They didn't appear to have their own propulsion, so presumably they were fired at the enemy at very high speed.
And what about the thing Kirk built in the episode with the Gorn?
That's true regardless of whether Trump or Clinton or Superman is President (OK, Superman's not native born...). Getting a new job is going to be hard, and technologically displaced people need serious assistance.
However, Trump's the one talking about getting the mines open again and the coal mining jobs back, and that very simply isn't going to happen, and Trump doesn't want it to anyway. That gives false hope, and diverts people's attention from what needs to be done to help these people.
Fundamentally, the ability of someone with few skills to make a decent living just by working hard is going away, and isn't coming back.
Apple Care, like all insurance, is priced so that it will be a loss for the average person. The only times you should buy insurance are when you can't afford a loss (a house fire, for example, or injuring someone in an auto accident) or when you think the insurance is underpriced. If you can spend $200 for a year of protection, you can almost certainly replace your iPhone X if you have to.
Nope. Mathematics is a language to describe what we've observed of the universe. It's been a very, very good description with lots of predictive power. .It doesn't rely on physics. Physics isn't based on mathematical principles. It's based on a set of mathematical axioms and their consequences. When we find a problem with mathematical predictions in physics, the fault isn't the mathematics. The fault is that we're using the wrong axioms, and we've corrected those many, many times. There could be a part of physics that isn't explainable mathematically, for some reason I can't conceive of right now, but even that would not be a failure of mathematics.
You seem to have no clue what I'm talking about.
You are completely correct when it comes to actual employment in most of the US (there may be states that aren't at will) - assuming, of course, that the cause isn't illegitimate, such as union activity, refusal of sexual favors, that sort of thing (and that's darn hard to prove).
However, I'm talking about whether the former employees are eligible for unemployment benefits. If fired for cause, ineligible. If voluntarily quit, ineligible. If dismissed without cause, eligible. Ineligible is financially better for the company.
Solar City fired the employees for cause, which would appear to make them ineligible. The employees can contest the firing for cause (they can't contest the firing). Unless the employer has some paper trail of trying to work with the employees, the ruling is almost certainly going to be that the employee is eligible for benefits.
News flash: That isn't the "entire Russian collusion narrative". That's still under investigation.
There are still reasonable Republican constituents out there, and they've got to be appalled at some of the things Trump's been doing. The authoritarian base is fine with him.
This is partly a culture war, and Trump's on the losing side. Demographically, this is the last hurrah of the white Christian majority, and the evangelical churches are going to lose younger members because of their position on Trump. (They've started on the same downslide as the mainstream Christian community, just later.)
Yes, but you're describing what would be ideal (and attainable if the Spanish government allowed it), and I don't see such a thing happening in reality.
We're talking about a century and a half here, at which time science and technology would have diffused well.
The problems with the French Air Force were largely political. I've also been told that the move to WWII-style fighters, with more powerful engines and guns, and stressed-aluminum fuselages, resulted in maintenance crises during the transition. I was told that both the French and Soviet crises happened for the German invasions.
The French weapons were pretty much on a par with other countries' weapons. The big problems were bad deployment and a bad mobile warfare doctrine. The main problem with French tanks was the specifications they were designed for. German armored doctrine wasn't perfect, but it was a lot closer than anyone else's (at least since Stalin purged the Red Army proponents of "Deep Battle"). Arguably, had France had a stronger electronics industry, French tanks could have had radios, which would have improved their effectiveness significantly.