She's not "brainwashed". She lived through (or just shortly after) both Stalin and Mao. That communism does not necessarily imply authoritarianism is purely academic - anyone who lived through the cold war can certainly be forgiven from learning that the two seemed to go together in practice. Perhaps this woman seems ignorant to a poli-sci major. She probably feels the same way about ivory tower types with no sense of reality.
In any event, whether she used the words "authoritarian" or "communist", her meaning is unambiguous. She communicated her opinion effectively, and that is the main purpose of language.
Please understand that this is a 60-year-old or so woman. She grew up with the Cold War. Don't hold this woman to the standards that you would someone who has learned about systems of government from textbooks. To her, communist is a synonym for authoritarian. Communists were all about "papers, please" and preventing their citizenry from critique or even travel.
I had an incident where my photos folder suffered silent filesystem corruption. Fortunately, my backup tool (Unison) does enough file comparisons and did not brainlessly overwrite the undamaged images still in backup but instead flagged it as a conflict. It taught me a lesson about what is "good enough" for day-to-day users. Just like a lightning strike taught me about off-site backup for day-to-day users.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but then realized that sarcasm makes no sense here. So you must be serious.
It's quite simple - use email for the 99.9% of your communications that does not need to be secure. Send your tax forms through a secure web site. Problem solved. Web email is still useful.
It was a horrible place where rich landowners held dominion over poor field workers cranking out sugarcane. It was all replaced by the communist party, who held dominion over poor field workers cranking out sugarcane.
Bush, Rubio, and Kasich are not loons. They are basically the same as Hillary on all except the "wedge" issues. They are plain-Jane centrist establishment candidates, just like Hillary. On the Democratic side, Sanders polls better against any of the Republican candidates than Hillary. She's not popular. But she's the only establishment candidate that the Democrats have. She'll get the straight-column voters on election day, but will have a hard time convincing a majority of more thoughtful people - or firing people up enough loyal people to actually come out and pull the lever. Sanders fires people up, no question about it. As the populist candidate, I wouldn't count him out just yet. Trump will have trouble getting past the nominating convention even if he wins a plurality of delegates. Between superdelegates and pooling of other candidates' delegates, I doubt he could secure the nomination.
Do you really think the US would give a hoot about Seoul if an atomic device were detonated in an American city? North Korea would face immediate nuclear retaliation, or possibly it would be spared if China allowed a direct invasion.
Again, I don't argue that it would be useful as a tool of terror - but to what end? N. Korea would be a smoking ruin afterwards. And we'd be without DC. Win-win.
Russia certainly has some political strings to pull, but millions of Chinese streaming over the Korean border is the most immediate problem - as it was for Douglas MacArthur in 1950.
Agreed. But it would be impossible to take out the US submarine (and probably ballistic missile) capability with car bombs - even if you had an unlimited number of them with no danger of discovery. Thus, your country would still be destroyed completely. North Korea, of course, does not have unlimited numbers of these bombs and if they did, more bombs means more likelihood of discovery. So while a car bomb nuke is enough to cause quite a bit of terror and carnage, it would certainly not win a war.
The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.
I agree that scale might make it easier for Google to reduce costs over and above what an individual can get. But I think we're talking about a few percentage points - profit margins for insurance companies are in the 10% range. At the end of the day it will still be a matter of paying for your insurance up-front with the cost of the vehicle or paying as you go.
But again, the timeliness isn't there. And the result is less certain. Could it work as a terrorist attack? Certainly. As a strategic deterrence? I don't think so.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, or where the savings would supposedly come from. The market price for a car with insurance included would certainly be higher than the market price for a car with no insurance included.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
That's an excellent point. But my comment about the timeliness of launch still stands. An eventual car bomb attack that may or may not work is a lot less of a deterrent than a couple of dozen ICBMs.
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell. A ground burst also limits the damage. The slow nature of deploying it would make it offensive only - if they were attacked it would be too late to use it. They need the opposite, something that could be launched within a few hours in response to an attack. Something that would sting just enough to make the US decide not to invade.
Actual use would mean suicide, so it's not meant to be used.
If they get to the theoretical capacity, it is true that they will someday be similar. Propulsive efficiency of jet engines is already very good, there is not much room for electric to improve on this - but they could conceivably be similar.
On the other hand, as the jet fuel is consumed the weight decreases. Batteries stay the same weight for the entire flight.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the name calling? I think we agree.
She's not "brainwashed". She lived through (or just shortly after) both Stalin and Mao. That communism does not necessarily imply authoritarianism is purely academic - anyone who lived through the cold war can certainly be forgiven from learning that the two seemed to go together in practice. Perhaps this woman seems ignorant to a poli-sci major. She probably feels the same way about ivory tower types with no sense of reality.
In any event, whether she used the words "authoritarian" or "communist", her meaning is unambiguous. She communicated her opinion effectively, and that is the main purpose of language.
Please understand that this is a 60-year-old or so woman. She grew up with the Cold War. Don't hold this woman to the standards that you would someone who has learned about systems of government from textbooks. To her, communist is a synonym for authoritarian. Communists were all about "papers, please" and preventing their citizenry from critique or even travel.
A similar situation exists with WiFi - the ESP8266. These things can be bought for under $2 and include a 32-bit micro-controller with WiFi. Amazing.
This is why I'll jest let out a big yawn when we finally discover faster-than-light travel.
I had an incident where my photos folder suffered silent filesystem corruption. Fortunately, my backup tool (Unison) does enough file comparisons and did not brainlessly overwrite the undamaged images still in backup but instead flagged it as a conflict. It taught me a lesson about what is "good enough" for day-to-day users. Just like a lightning strike taught me about off-site backup for day-to-day users.
You almost got me.
nobody should be using web based email.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but then realized that sarcasm makes no sense here. So you must be serious.
It's quite simple - use email for the 99.9% of your communications that does not need to be secure. Send your tax forms through a secure web site. Problem solved. Web email is still useful.
It was a horrible place where rich landowners held dominion over poor field workers cranking out sugarcane. It was all replaced by the communist party, who held dominion over poor field workers cranking out sugarcane.
Bush, Rubio, and Kasich are not loons. They are basically the same as Hillary on all except the "wedge" issues. They are plain-Jane centrist establishment candidates, just like Hillary. On the Democratic side, Sanders polls better against any of the Republican candidates than Hillary. She's not popular. But she's the only establishment candidate that the Democrats have. She'll get the straight-column voters on election day, but will have a hard time convincing a majority of more thoughtful people - or firing people up enough loyal people to actually come out and pull the lever. Sanders fires people up, no question about it. As the populist candidate, I wouldn't count him out just yet. Trump will have trouble getting past the nominating convention even if he wins a plurality of delegates. Between superdelegates and pooling of other candidates' delegates, I doubt he could secure the nomination.
But who am I? LOL.
Do you really think the US would give a hoot about Seoul if an atomic device were detonated in an American city? North Korea would face immediate nuclear retaliation, or possibly it would be spared if China allowed a direct invasion.
Again, I don't argue that it would be useful as a tool of terror - but to what end? N. Korea would be a smoking ruin afterwards. And we'd be without DC. Win-win.
I thought that with the newest satellites, that capability had not been designed-in?
Russia certainly has some political strings to pull, but millions of Chinese streaming over the Korean border is the most immediate problem - as it was for Douglas MacArthur in 1950.
Agreed. But it would be impossible to take out the US submarine (and probably ballistic missile) capability with car bombs - even if you had an unlimited number of them with no danger of discovery. Thus, your country would still be destroyed completely. North Korea, of course, does not have unlimited numbers of these bombs and if they did, more bombs means more likelihood of discovery. So while a car bomb nuke is enough to cause quite a bit of terror and carnage, it would certainly not win a war.
The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.
I think it has a lot more to do with China.
Uninhabitable, as bad as that is, is still preferable to vaporized.
I agree that scale might make it easier for Google to reduce costs over and above what an individual can get. But I think we're talking about a few percentage points - profit margins for insurance companies are in the 10% range. At the end of the day it will still be a matter of paying for your insurance up-front with the cost of the vehicle or paying as you go.
But again, the timeliness isn't there. And the result is less certain. Could it work as a terrorist attack? Certainly. As a strategic deterrence? I don't think so.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, or where the savings would supposedly come from. The market price for a car with insurance included would certainly be higher than the market price for a car with no insurance included.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
That's an excellent point. But my comment about the timeliness of launch still stands. An eventual car bomb attack that may or may not work is a lot less of a deterrent than a couple of dozen ICBMs.
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell. A ground burst also limits the damage. The slow nature of deploying it would make it offensive only - if they were attacked it would be too late to use it. They need the opposite, something that could be launched within a few hours in response to an attack. Something that would sting just enough to make the US decide not to invade.
Actual use would mean suicide, so it's not meant to be used.
They are down under $2 shipped now and they come in varieties with more IO. Arduino code now runs on them directly.
But you are right, they are finicky.
Just generate a giant arc to ground. Like mighty Thor.
If they get to the theoretical capacity, it is true that they will someday be similar. Propulsive efficiency of jet engines is already very good, there is not much room for electric to improve on this - but they could conceivably be similar.
On the other hand, as the jet fuel is consumed the weight decreases. Batteries stay the same weight for the entire flight.