I'm aware of that (and it's mostly what the British, Australians and others were doing both in Iraq and Afganistan long before Petraeus took command - as well as there being a subject about most of it at West Point before Rumsfeld made some cuts) but have failed to find anything that would earn him the title of "great man" especially given the current outcome, so I was asking what specifically gave you such an impression.
It means that you are sharing your magical thinking with us and it is very annoying.
Suggesting that it's only politics in the way and if you could just say the right words somebody will "make it so" is a very juvenile and unrealistic way of looking at the world even if some managers promoted beyond their ability also possess that flaw. Societies try to teach children enough about science to cure them of such a problem but sometimes it doesn't stick.
Who said you have to land to drop the package
Good luck setting up an airdrop in 24 hours to most of those places I mentioned. The "you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it" is a little bit of a clue as to why your short timeframe is part of the magical thinking.
You are citing an ad? Wow. See how that works out to get something into Antarctica, the middle of any desert far from an airstrip or even just somewhere in the middle of Indonesia, Thailand or PNG.
The ideal is convincing Nvidia that software patents will not be an issue if they open up the code. We may have to wait for the ex-SGI guys in that place to retire because they were burnt before. The absolute ideal way for that to happen is if those stupid software patents that are normally just a description of a problem instead of a solution to be completely discarded.
We can drop a pallet anywhere on the planet within 24 hours
Seriously? Try stepping outside of a city some time. There's that annoying reality thing in the way again. Try to drop that pallet in a remote area and you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it that is not already doing something else.
According to the 1970s, we were supposed to be running out of oil by now, except, we're not...
Oil got redefined since to stuff from shale and liquid oil from places we had no hope of getting to in the 1970s (eg. under very deep water).
but we burn a crap ton of it and it doesn't have the endless reserves many people think it does. Not the cheap kind anyway.
There is that. For example there's a project in Mongolia to have a very deep pit to get to what would have been done before as underground mining but would be considered far too expensive to do. There is also a bit of friction due to some of the more convenient coal around the world being under some of the best farmland in the world.
The big problem is that India's grid is already over stressed and has problems keeping up as is
Another way to look at it is because they have to expand it anyway why not consider doing a bit more than meeting current demand. That's the way we used to do things in the west, and while we don't do it any more there is no reason to be critical of another place doing what we used to do when we had the will to succeed in the long term instead of just get a good balance sheet this quarter.
That's a very lossy way to do things. Instead of thinking in base load and storage terms consider how we now have lots of tiny little units that can be brought online to follow demand. You don't need to "smooth out renewables", you just need to distribute them all over the place and use them as needed as is happening in many places.
If the pollution is coming out of the top of great big stacks (preferably after going through scrubbers) instead of on crowded streets where people are breathing then means bringing particulate pollution from vehicles down to levels that are not a worry. Carbon dioxide is not relevant to such an aim and would have to be solved in a different way.
Behind those "lot of badly written websites" (which is possibly also true) could be a single badly written PHP library or even single badly written PHP script that has been cut and pasted from a tutorial site thousands of times.
It's a guess but there is a lot of crap on websites that the people who put there do not even understand themselves.
More parsers than you would think really suck so fall deep into the category of "really weird shit". There's one I've had the misfortune of dealing with where if users insert an apostrophe into a comment the application attempts to execute everything after that in a shell. The wonders of closed source software - delivering such a blatant security hole from at least 1998 until today.
The other option is to do what a lot of female doctors and scientists apparently do - just keep on using the same name professionally no matter what is happening with other social interactions.
France in the 1970s, in a very short period of time, completely switched it's power generation over to nuclear power
Where the fuck did that Prester Fucking John they do magic in far away places utter fucking bullshit come from? You should be utterly ashamed of trying to fool the kiddies with that. France had a LOT of hydro, coal and even a fucking 240MW tidal generating plant by 1970.
I agree that "enthusiasts are the real problem here". Anyone arguing an energy monoculture is in my opinion either a sleazy salesman or a deluded fanboy that has been tricked by one. With your obvious lie you are looking a lot like the sleazy salesman - so why are you doing it?
The concept is good but building dinosaur 1970s tech and declaring it good is just a drain on whoever puts up the capital. The banks are not that stupid so it's going to be the taxpayer footing the bill. R&D, pilot plants and actual progress before building plants that are good enough to justify themselves is the way to go. US civilian nuclear technology is decades behind even South Africa (pebble bed) and Australia (Synroc) for fucks sake. Part of that is due to the nuclear lobby eating it's own children by spending a lot of money to lobby AGAINST thorium research in the 1990s - it challenged the sunk costs in Uranium.
I think you are making claims about him and his "greatness" that he would not agree with himself. He described his time there as "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq".
Anyway, my point is he was more politically connected than exceptional just like pretty well everyone Baby Bush appointed so I do not see that as an example of Baby Bush being a good leader who hired "really good people to get the job done". Where were the "really good people" who were not already Bush insiders or cronies of them? Why was a guy that was not even a General in early 2004 and had no successes behind him running an entire theatre in 2006? We got Horse Judges doing "a heck of a job" instead of "really good people". It looks like something out of France or Russia just before they lost total control to revolution and we can be very thankful that Democracy replaces dead wood in other ways.
Fair enough, but getting back to the "great" thing - what did Petraeus do apart from actually getting those extra troops to deploy that all the other Generals had been asking for? Whatever temporary success he may have had commences with Rumsfeld no longer being in a position to block the deployment of extra troops.
The unusual thing was to defeat them, like Petraeus did
Defeat them? Are you serious? They merely moved to other areas that were not as well defended.
From those words it appears that you are doing exactly what the "God told me to kill" pricks want you to do. They are driving a wedge to incite hatred between two groups. Do you really want to be manipulated by these evil bastards or are you going to think for yourself?
Thanks a lot for calling me a lair for a very trivial reason. Meanwhile back in reality the problem was that I was not the CEO so it meant dealing with the very non-technical boss of the guy with the application instead of dealing with him myself. It's a side issue of the example so I really don't get why you are arguing and why you are going so far as to call me a liar. You also seem to be acting as if you have been asked to solve a problem when with that example it was solved years ago, but it won't be the case for similar situations of identical stupidity. So many developers are still stuck on the single user, 32 bit, single threaded, non-networked, trust be default mentality of MSDOS and that shows with software that needlessly runs as admin.
Workplace politics is often more complicated - I was the "CISO" but the developer was outside of my chain of command since he did it more or less as a hobby on the side of his real job.
The real issue is for developers to wake up to bad practices instead of just thinking they are being bullied by the head of a different department.
All that is aside from the point - such bad practices were very common not long ago and still exist in many places.
All of the power ended up being concentrated with a minority during that time which led to all the problems we are having now with Daash/ISIL. The Iraqi troops Petraeus spent so much effort in training went AWOL in the first engagement and many even joined the other side. The number of bombings increased while Petraeus was in charge. I've got the idea you are using the wrong metric to describe greatness and only looking at a very small piece of the picture, but that's just my opinion and you know better than I what yours is actually based on.
To me "great" is Peter the Great, Churchill, Jefferson etc and not some politically well connected "neocon armchair general" who was put in charge of the first serious engagement he'd ever been involved with and had no lasting results. He's had his shot at glory and success and in literal terms completely fucked it up. The history of the CIA, even though shabby at times in the past, has never had a less effective leader with less accomplishments and his military effectiveness, if it existed at all, had no lasting results. So once again, choosing from a very shallow pool of a few close associates instead of the best that is on offer.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of that (and it's mostly what the British, Australians and others were doing both in Iraq and Afganistan long before Petraeus took command - as well as there being a subject about most of it at West Point before Rumsfeld made some cuts) but have failed to find anything that would earn him the title of "great man" especially given the current outcome, so I was asking what specifically gave you such an impression.
Suggesting that it's only politics in the way and if you could just say the right words somebody will "make it so" is a very juvenile and unrealistic way of looking at the world even if some managers promoted beyond their ability also possess that flaw. Societies try to teach children enough about science to cure them of such a problem but sometimes it doesn't stick.
Good luck setting up an airdrop in 24 hours to most of those places I mentioned. The "you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it" is a little bit of a clue as to why your short timeframe is part of the magical thinking.
While there "could" be the ex-SGI guys at Nvidia that got burnt in court before were pretty vocal about the one I mentioned.
You are citing an ad?
Wow.
See how that works out to get something into Antarctica, the middle of any desert far from an airstrip or even just somewhere in the middle of Indonesia, Thailand or PNG.
The ideal is convincing Nvidia that software patents will not be an issue if they open up the code. We may have to wait for the ex-SGI guys in that place to retire because they were burnt before. The absolute ideal way for that to happen is if those stupid software patents that are normally just a description of a problem instead of a solution to be completely discarded.
Seriously? Try stepping outside of a city some time. There's that annoying reality thing in the way again. Try to drop that pallet in a remote area and you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it that is not already doing something else.
Yes.
Which is why they want to do it.
Electric cars are not an energy saving measure. They are a "get the smog out of the city" measure.
The dream appears to be to fix a LOT of electrical infrastructure and add more.
If you mean a lack of political will to fund efforts to overcome the aspects of reality holding us back, maybe, but there is no quick fix.
Oil got redefined since to stuff from shale and liquid oil from places we had no hope of getting to in the 1970s (eg. under very deep water).
There is that. For example there's a project in Mongolia to have a very deep pit to get to what would have been done before as underground mining but would be considered far too expensive to do. There is also a bit of friction due to some of the more convenient coal around the world being under some of the best farmland in the world.
Another way to look at it is because they have to expand it anyway why not consider doing a bit more than meeting current demand. That's the way we used to do things in the west, and while we don't do it any more there is no reason to be critical of another place doing what we used to do when we had the will to succeed in the long term instead of just get a good balance sheet this quarter.
That's a very lossy way to do things. Instead of thinking in base load and storage terms consider how we now have lots of tiny little units that can be brought online to follow demand. You don't need to "smooth out renewables", you just need to distribute them all over the place and use them as needed as is happening in many places.
If the pollution is coming out of the top of great big stacks (preferably after going through scrubbers) instead of on crowded streets where people are breathing then means bringing particulate pollution from vehicles down to levels that are not a worry.
Carbon dioxide is not relevant to such an aim and would have to be solved in a different way.
Behind those "lot of badly written websites" (which is possibly also true) could be a single badly written PHP library or even single badly written PHP script that has been cut and pasted from a tutorial site thousands of times.
It's a guess but there is a lot of crap on websites that the people who put there do not even understand themselves.
More parsers than you would think really suck so fall deep into the category of "really weird shit". There's one I've had the misfortune of dealing with where if users insert an apostrophe into a comment the application attempts to execute everything after that in a shell. The wonders of closed source software - delivering such a blatant security hole from at least 1998 until today.
The other option is to do what a lot of female doctors and scientists apparently do - just keep on using the same name professionally no matter what is happening with other social interactions.
Where the fuck did that Prester Fucking John they do magic in far away places utter fucking bullshit come from? You should be utterly ashamed of trying to fool the kiddies with that. France had a LOT of hydro, coal and even a fucking 240MW tidal generating plant by 1970.
I agree that "enthusiasts are the real problem here". Anyone arguing an energy monoculture is in my opinion either a sleazy salesman or a deluded fanboy that has been tricked by one. With your obvious lie you are looking a lot like the sleazy salesman - so why are you doing it?
The concept is good but building dinosaur 1970s tech and declaring it good is just a drain on whoever puts up the capital. The banks are not that stupid so it's going to be the taxpayer footing the bill.
R&D, pilot plants and actual progress before building plants that are good enough to justify themselves is the way to go. US civilian nuclear technology is decades behind even South Africa (pebble bed) and Australia (Synroc) for fucks sake. Part of that is due to the nuclear lobby eating it's own children by spending a lot of money to lobby AGAINST thorium research in the 1990s - it challenged the sunk costs in Uranium.
Hence a baseline orders of magnitude larger than the current first try. Did you even read past the first sentence?
I think you are making claims about him and his "greatness" that he would not agree with himself. He described his time there as "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq".
Anyway, my point is he was more politically connected than exceptional just like pretty well everyone Baby Bush appointed so I do not see that as an example of Baby Bush being a good leader who hired "really good people to get the job done". Where were the "really good people" who were not already Bush insiders or cronies of them? Why was a guy that was not even a General in early 2004 and had no successes behind him running an entire theatre in 2006? We got Horse Judges doing "a heck of a job" instead of "really good people". It looks like something out of France or Russia just before they lost total control to revolution and we can be very thankful that Democracy replaces dead wood in other ways.
Defeat them? Are you serious? They merely moved to other areas that were not as well defended.
From those words it appears that you are doing exactly what the "God told me to kill" pricks want you to do. They are driving a wedge to incite hatred between two groups. Do you really want to be manipulated by these evil bastards or are you going to think for yourself?
Thanks a lot for calling me a lair for a very trivial reason. Meanwhile back in reality the problem was that I was not the CEO so it meant dealing with the very non-technical boss of the guy with the application instead of dealing with him myself.
It's a side issue of the example so I really don't get why you are arguing and why you are going so far as to call me a liar. You also seem to be acting as if you have been asked to solve a problem when with that example it was solved years ago, but it won't be the case for similar situations of identical stupidity.
So many developers are still stuck on the single user, 32 bit, single threaded, non-networked, trust be default mentality of MSDOS and that shows with software that needlessly runs as admin.
Workplace politics is often more complicated - I was the "CISO" but the developer was outside of my chain of command since he did it more or less as a hobby on the side of his real job.
The real issue is for developers to wake up to bad practices instead of just thinking they are being bullied by the head of a different department.
All that is aside from the point - such bad practices were very common not long ago and still exist in many places.
All of the power ended up being concentrated with a minority during that time which led to all the problems we are having now with Daash/ISIL. The Iraqi troops Petraeus spent so much effort in training went AWOL in the first engagement and many even joined the other side. The number of bombings increased while Petraeus was in charge.
I've got the idea you are using the wrong metric to describe greatness and only looking at a very small piece of the picture, but that's just my opinion and you know better than I what yours is actually based on.
To me "great" is Peter the Great, Churchill, Jefferson etc and not some politically well connected "neocon armchair general" who was put in charge of the first serious engagement he'd ever been involved with and had no lasting results. He's had his shot at glory and success and in literal terms completely fucked it up. The history of the CIA, even though shabby at times in the past, has never had a less effective leader with less accomplishments and his military effectiveness, if it existed at all, had no lasting results.
So once again, choosing from a very shallow pool of a few close associates instead of the best that is on offer.