Just about all of the pre-Apollo American launches of humans into space was done with ICBM rockets. Lots and lots of satellites were also launched with ex-ICBM Titans/Titan IIs, and Atlas rockets through the eighties were based on the ICBM version of the Atlas.
Admittedly, these rockets were meant for orbital insertion or suborbital spaceflight, but that they have been adapted for nonhostile or less-hostile space applications implies that it would be possible to continue to do that, and that there is software/firecontrol that could be modified to do the job.
The willingness of soldiers to fire on the enemy has been long debated. There is good evidence that most soldiers, even when they are in danger of being overrun by the enemy, don't fire their rifles (only about 30% fired against enemy in WWII). We are raised to value human life and it's really difficult to overcome that prohibition.
Interesting article here:
http://www.historynet.com/men-...
It's interesting thinking about that kind of statistic when applied to someone that's not in-danger themselves and is under the scrutiny of someone that expects on-the-job performance who's also not in-danger themselves but isn't obligated to push the button to kill. I expect it's actually easier to justify, in the stress of a firefight, not taking life as it can be blamed on the stressful situation, compared to being in an environment without that kind of external stress.
Maybe it would make sense to shorten their shifts an hour or a half-hour and mandate that they either go work-out, or go to the pistol range and get in some target practice, or something else to help the nerves a bit that doesn't involve killing people.
Soldiers are supposed to be trained to follow orders and that there are consequences for not following those orders. Sure, some will disobey orders, but if there are penalties for being caught or for the ramifications of unauthorized use then it would probably work better than in prisons.
The USSR didn't decide what was allowed to be sold, they decided what was allowed to be produced. On top of that all developed nations, be they first-world or second-world, ban things that they feel are harmful to the public. If our government had the balls for it they'd ban high fructose corn syrup instead of cup sizes, but they don't, so local governments do what they can for public health.
Haven't you noticed, that when one country invades another, that usually disparate groups with a degree of nationalism end up banding together at least temporarily to combat the invading agressor?
Beause it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq too, and that's even with our statements that we didn't want to permanently take territory either.
Couldn't banning personal electronics capable of live network communication help and picture taking help? Seems like it would make sense for the military to proactively come up with ways to allow its members to still have the connection to home through social media, but in ways that make it less unsafe for units. Hell, set up a 'selfie stand' or some designated area for soldiers to have their pictures taken that won't compromise operational security, and use cameras that don't take location data, so that pictures are safe and can't be used for targeting coordinates...
US forces have had problems with this too, and not just the Geraldo Rivera incident. If I remember right there was a soldier or airman that took a selfie with some cool helicopters or something that had landed at his Iraqi base, and insurgents started shelling when they realized what was there. Admittedly these aircraft were out in the open exposed so it's still possible that they'd have been seen and targeted anyway, but the particular method through which their presence was initially identified was the photo.
Mind you, I don't think that the US has very many instances of this happening, but it's not without precedent. I'd argue it's just another form of, "loose lips sink ships."
I have no problem with her taking it. She paid for it. I imagine that had she not contributed to it and not been eligible to receive it, she still would have been broke, and probably not significantly later than when she went on the dole.
I think it's hilarious when people with slightly different opinions compared to the vast spectrum of positions available argue that the other's position is so incredibly different from their own. None of us want to live in Somalia or in North Korea, where the state effectively doesn't exist or where the state maintains absolute control. We all want the state to do things as an organization, and the very slight differences between what we all want are so small that getting this butt-hurt about them is just stupid.
Ayn Rand herself spent her final years on government assistance, taking Medicare and Social Security.
Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We actually make a habit of saving our bacon fat when possible, it actually saves well for cooking more than once and it is so tasty. Only downside really is that some of our friends are of religions (Jewish, Muslim, and Vegan) where it's not allowed, so the little that we do have these friends eat with us we have to switch back to the lesser oils.
We have been feeling the fallout of Redit drama for a while now. How many articles on how we need more women in STEM have we had in the last 6 months?
My wife has a bachelors in mechanical engineering from MIT and works in a field that uses her degree. She has told me that she's tired of hearing "STEM" as it always seems to come from people that do not hold any degree in the hard sciences, or in technology, or in engineering, or in mathematics. If they want to push for people to get degrees in these fields, then they should put their money, time, and energy where their mouth is and go back and get a degree from among those kinds, then start advocating for it once they really know what they're advocating for.
Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense.
That's the closest US analog I can come up with.
That's part of the trouble, analogs that don't completely apply, combined with allegations that can't be proven.
Every so many months there are fairly high-profile rape or other sexual abuse violations in the news. A common thread in most of these situations is that they lack proof, and usually it's due to action or inaction on the part of the accuser. Some cases find the accuser's actions like bathing or waiting too long to have destroyed physical evidence, and other cases find documentation showing the accuser continuing to pursue friendship or sexual contact with the accused, and these are in places where the law doesn't place a legal distinction in one partner following another partner's directions or mandates before the consensual act happens. Sweden's rules that allow partners to define the conditions under which one partner consents that are binding but not documented before the act itself make it very difficult to determine what actually happened, and as in other high profile cases it sounds like there's evidence of continued contact after the act that was eventually the basis of the complaint.
If I understand the law where I live, once the choice to commence sexual intercourse is made, so long as the acts themselves are, "natural," there is no legal basis for conditional consent based on the use of contraception or lack thereof by one party or the other. The act itself is assumed to carry the responsibility that it could lead to pregnancy or other undesired ramifications even if contraception or other forms of protection are employed as that is the point of sex to begin with, so the responsibility to use protection is borne by each individual in the act for themselves, rather than on the other person, and that the ramifications for the act are strictly personal outside of the realm of conception and shared responsibility to any offspring. In short, anyone that voluntarily engages in natural sexual congress is strictly responsible for themselves and for any progeny as a result, and that the other person, within certain bounds (like your reference to knowingly lying about some fatal infectious diseases) is not responsible for the other person's well-being.
Assange might be a horrible person, convincing women to have riskier sex with him than they otherwise would normally agree to, but between the difficult nature of quantifying responsibility in an otherwise consensual sexual encounter and a lack of definitive evidence that the offense actually occurred coupled with contrary evidence that indicates a cordial relationship post-act, it's difficult to understand how there's enough to make an international case of it. After all, history is full of charismatic seducers that convinced others to have sex with them despite their original antipathy without labeling the act as a form of rape or other illegal sexual act. Calling Assange's act criminal should mean that the act of women intentionally ceasing the use of birth control to get pregnant without communicating with their partners is also criminal. It's not wise to define either that way though, and since there isn't a way to prove allegations without an admission, it makes more sense to leave the burden of responsibility on each person, for themselves, when they agree to commence the act itself.
This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.
I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.
It feels like we just adopted Windows 7 and then Windows 8/8.1 on more portable devices; I doubt that we'll want to turn around and redo high-five-figures worth of devices again when we just got done.
Good description, but you still will be modded down.
I know. Sometimes ridiculousness needs to be pointed out though, and it's not like I'm picking on something that is outside of the control of the individuals I'm lampooning.
Came here to say this. The financial system was implemented in the eighties on an i-Series and is written in COBOL and RPG. There are web front-ends for some components, others still use a "Client Access" TN5250 client or for me, since the console TN5250 client isn't being maintained for Linux anymore and doesn't want to compile, a 3270 client still works.
Do not overlook the service agreement/contract. Do not overlook the need for grizzled old guy with poor social skills to take care of it. Do not parade him around in front of senior management, they will hate him and it if you do. Make it clear that it's not DOS. We've seen people complain about the system because it was text-based, calling it DOS. They're fools, but if you don't nip that in the bud at the beginning it'll bite you in the ass later.
Also, define service windows when there is no expectation of access, and enforce them even when there's no maintenance from time to time, to keep people from complaining when there is a legitimate service needed. It's annoying but it can be necessary when some asshole thinks that they should work on something at 3am because they feel like it, even when that's in the middle of the published service window.
Does that mean that it was written by by hipsters sitting in coffee shops as Apples drinking overpriced coffee and thinking that they're saving the world by typing a few lines into a computer?
Without an FM-synth midi chip or a software emulation of it, I don't see how it's really DOOM. Hell, playing DOOM on a wavetable-synth midi card wasn't even right...
There are two Apple platforms, one popular Google platform, one less-popular Google platform, plus Microsoft's platform. Is Swift suitable for writing applications for all? If not, developers would be writing for a limited, albeit popular platform, but limited to a certain subset nonetheless.
If you're referring to FIFA in-particular, I expect that a lot of countries wanted that to happen and basically the US was the only one whose soccer/fubtol enthusiast population is small enough to allow it to happen. Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.
As for other laws, the US does have some conditions under which it will prosecute Americans or those with permanent residency for acts committed overseas, usually related to sexual slavery or other acts that the US populace considers egregious enough to prosecute. I expect that the acts have to be pretty damn overt and that there has to be no real chance of local prosecution and that most individuals that could theoretically be prosecuted aren't.
Dude, their boss was pissed off enough with them when I threw the deprecated POP3 command "TOP" at them. He didn't realize that they were written so poorly.
Slashdot Mirror
Just about all of the pre-Apollo American launches of humans into space was done with ICBM rockets. Lots and lots of satellites were also launched with ex-ICBM Titans/Titan IIs, and Atlas rockets through the eighties were based on the ICBM version of the Atlas.
Admittedly, these rockets were meant for orbital insertion or suborbital spaceflight, but that they have been adapted for nonhostile or less-hostile space applications implies that it would be possible to continue to do that, and that there is software/firecontrol that could be modified to do the job.
The willingness of soldiers to fire on the enemy has been long debated. There is good evidence that most soldiers, even when they are in danger of being overrun by the enemy, don't fire their rifles (only about 30% fired against enemy in WWII). We are raised to value human life and it's really difficult to overcome that prohibition. Interesting article here: http://www.historynet.com/men-...
It's interesting thinking about that kind of statistic when applied to someone that's not in-danger themselves and is under the scrutiny of someone that expects on-the-job performance who's also not in-danger themselves but isn't obligated to push the button to kill. I expect it's actually easier to justify, in the stress of a firefight, not taking life as it can be blamed on the stressful situation, compared to being in an environment without that kind of external stress.
Maybe it would make sense to shorten their shifts an hour or a half-hour and mandate that they either go work-out, or go to the pistol range and get in some target practice, or something else to help the nerves a bit that doesn't involve killing people.
Soldiers are supposed to be trained to follow orders and that there are consequences for not following those orders. Sure, some will disobey orders, but if there are penalties for being caught or for the ramifications of unauthorized use then it would probably work better than in prisons.
The USSR didn't decide what was allowed to be sold, they decided what was allowed to be produced. On top of that all developed nations, be they first-world or second-world, ban things that they feel are harmful to the public. If our government had the balls for it they'd ban high fructose corn syrup instead of cup sizes, but they don't, so local governments do what they can for public health.
Haven't you noticed, that when one country invades another, that usually disparate groups with a degree of nationalism end up banding together at least temporarily to combat the invading agressor?
Beause it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq too, and that's even with our statements that we didn't want to permanently take territory either.
Couldn't banning personal electronics capable of live network communication help and picture taking help? Seems like it would make sense for the military to proactively come up with ways to allow its members to still have the connection to home through social media, but in ways that make it less unsafe for units. Hell, set up a 'selfie stand' or some designated area for soldiers to have their pictures taken that won't compromise operational security, and use cameras that don't take location data, so that pictures are safe and can't be used for targeting coordinates...
US forces have had problems with this too, and not just the Geraldo Rivera incident. If I remember right there was a soldier or airman that took a selfie with some cool helicopters or something that had landed at his Iraqi base, and insurgents started shelling when they realized what was there. Admittedly these aircraft were out in the open exposed so it's still possible that they'd have been seen and targeted anyway, but the particular method through which their presence was initially identified was the photo.
Mind you, I don't think that the US has very many instances of this happening, but it's not without precedent. I'd argue it's just another form of, "loose lips sink ships."
I have no problem with her taking it. She paid for it. I imagine that had she not contributed to it and not been eligible to receive it, she still would have been broke, and probably not significantly later than when she went on the dole.
I think it's hilarious when people with slightly different opinions compared to the vast spectrum of positions available argue that the other's position is so incredibly different from their own. None of us want to live in Somalia or in North Korea, where the state effectively doesn't exist or where the state maintains absolute control. We all want the state to do things as an organization, and the very slight differences between what we all want are so small that getting this butt-hurt about them is just stupid.
Ayn Rand herself spent her final years on government assistance, taking Medicare and Social Security.
We actually make a habit of saving our bacon fat when possible, it actually saves well for cooking more than once and it is so tasty. Only downside really is that some of our friends are of religions (Jewish, Muslim, and Vegan) where it's not allowed, so the little that we do have these friends eat with us we have to switch back to the lesser oils.
We have been feeling the fallout of Redit drama for a while now. How many articles on how we need more women in STEM have we had in the last 6 months?
My wife has a bachelors in mechanical engineering from MIT and works in a field that uses her degree. She has told me that she's tired of hearing "STEM" as it always seems to come from people that do not hold any degree in the hard sciences, or in technology, or in engineering, or in mathematics. If they want to push for people to get degrees in these fields, then they should put their money, time, and energy where their mouth is and go back and get a degree from among those kinds, then start advocating for it once they really know what they're advocating for.
Note, this isn't an issue of changing one's mind the night after. This would be the same as in the US, if you asked your partner "do you have AIDS" and they say "no" and you later found out they had it and knew it, Is that rape? Not in the US, but because AIDS is deadly, it has been pursued as a criminal offense. That's the closest US analog I can come up with.
That's part of the trouble, analogs that don't completely apply, combined with allegations that can't be proven.
Every so many months there are fairly high-profile rape or other sexual abuse violations in the news. A common thread in most of these situations is that they lack proof, and usually it's due to action or inaction on the part of the accuser. Some cases find the accuser's actions like bathing or waiting too long to have destroyed physical evidence, and other cases find documentation showing the accuser continuing to pursue friendship or sexual contact with the accused, and these are in places where the law doesn't place a legal distinction in one partner following another partner's directions or mandates before the consensual act happens. Sweden's rules that allow partners to define the conditions under which one partner consents that are binding but not documented before the act itself make it very difficult to determine what actually happened, and as in other high profile cases it sounds like there's evidence of continued contact after the act that was eventually the basis of the complaint.
If I understand the law where I live, once the choice to commence sexual intercourse is made, so long as the acts themselves are, "natural," there is no legal basis for conditional consent based on the use of contraception or lack thereof by one party or the other. The act itself is assumed to carry the responsibility that it could lead to pregnancy or other undesired ramifications even if contraception or other forms of protection are employed as that is the point of sex to begin with, so the responsibility to use protection is borne by each individual in the act for themselves, rather than on the other person, and that the ramifications for the act are strictly personal outside of the realm of conception and shared responsibility to any offspring. In short, anyone that voluntarily engages in natural sexual congress is strictly responsible for themselves and for any progeny as a result, and that the other person, within certain bounds (like your reference to knowingly lying about some fatal infectious diseases) is not responsible for the other person's well-being.
Assange might be a horrible person, convincing women to have riskier sex with him than they otherwise would normally agree to, but between the difficult nature of quantifying responsibility in an otherwise consensual sexual encounter and a lack of definitive evidence that the offense actually occurred coupled with contrary evidence that indicates a cordial relationship post-act, it's difficult to understand how there's enough to make an international case of it. After all, history is full of charismatic seducers that convinced others to have sex with them despite their original antipathy without labeling the act as a form of rape or other illegal sexual act. Calling Assange's act criminal should mean that the act of women intentionally ceasing the use of birth control to get pregnant without communicating with their partners is also criminal. It's not wise to define either that way though, and since there isn't a way to prove allegations without an admission, it makes more sense to leave the burden of responsibility on each person, for themselves, when they agree to commence the act itself.
This is going to be interesting to watch. If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.
I wonder if there are any statutes of limitations in Sweden that the authorities, in a failure to interview someone that has been open to it on foreign soil, would run up against if they didn't interview him, which would basically void the ability to prosecute (and to seek extradition) if they don't take this step.
It feels like we just adopted Windows 7 and then Windows 8/8.1 on more portable devices; I doubt that we'll want to turn around and redo high-five-figures worth of devices again when we just got done.
Good description, but you still will be modded down.
I know. Sometimes ridiculousness needs to be pointed out though, and it's not like I'm picking on something that is outside of the control of the individuals I'm lampooning.
We can make a fortune if we can dig-up that old Fidonet code!
Imagine, being able to exchange e-mail with someone in three or four days!
Came here to say this. The financial system was implemented in the eighties on an i-Series and is written in COBOL and RPG. There are web front-ends for some components, others still use a "Client Access" TN5250 client or for me, since the console TN5250 client isn't being maintained for Linux anymore and doesn't want to compile, a 3270 client still works.
Do not overlook the service agreement/contract. Do not overlook the need for grizzled old guy with poor social skills to take care of it. Do not parade him around in front of senior management, they will hate him and it if you do. Make it clear that it's not DOS. We've seen people complain about the system because it was text-based, calling it DOS. They're fools, but if you don't nip that in the bud at the beginning it'll bite you in the ass later.
Also, define service windows when there is no expectation of access, and enforce them even when there's no maintenance from time to time, to keep people from complaining when there is a legitimate service needed. It's annoying but it can be necessary when some asshole thinks that they should work on something at 3am because they feel like it, even when that's in the middle of the published service window.
Does that mean that it was written by by hipsters sitting in coffee shops as Apples drinking overpriced coffee and thinking that they're saving the world by typing a few lines into a computer?
Plus there's murder charges in this case in India...
Without an FM-synth midi chip or a software emulation of it, I don't see how it's really DOOM. Hell, playing DOOM on a wavetable-synth midi card wasn't even right...
How's Swift's cross-platform suitability?
There are two Apple platforms, one popular Google platform, one less-popular Google platform, plus Microsoft's platform. Is Swift suitable for writing applications for all? If not, developers would be writing for a limited, albeit popular platform, but limited to a certain subset nonetheless.
If you're referring to FIFA in-particular, I expect that a lot of countries wanted that to happen and basically the US was the only one whose soccer/fubtol enthusiast population is small enough to allow it to happen. Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.
As for other laws, the US does have some conditions under which it will prosecute Americans or those with permanent residency for acts committed overseas, usually related to sexual slavery or other acts that the US populace considers egregious enough to prosecute. I expect that the acts have to be pretty damn overt and that there has to be no real chance of local prosecution and that most individuals that could theoretically be prosecuted aren't.
There'll be years and years of appeals, and I expect that if it ends up in a court with EU-wide jurisdiction then it could get very interesting.
Dude, their boss was pissed off enough with them when I threw the deprecated POP3 command "TOP" at them. He didn't realize that they were written so poorly.