You schedule the system to turn on and off for hours at a time. The satellites *must* cover all of the Earth at a lower latitude than the covered area, but nobody can keep them from cycling the service on and off over specific areas. The satellites must cover the area, but the service doesn't have to.
This was originally envisaged as a 50/50 joint public/private venture, but no companies actually stepped up to take part in the expensive R&D effort of re-building something that already exists.
R&D for something that exists (presuming you don't have to work around patents) should be much cheaper.
like China, which always speaks of "when we invade Taiwan", never "IF we invade Taiwan"
China claims it does now, and always has, owned Taiwan. The USA hasn't disagreed, but has said "regardless of who owns the land, will you respect the local government?" And China says "for now." *Never* has China indicated anything other than 100% ownership of Taiwan. And have indicated that "invasion" of Taiwan would be like calling the US naval base in Hawaii an "invasion of sovereign Hawaii."
Pax Americana as a theory might hold water, if it weren't for the fact that the USA has spent most of the latter half of the 20th century fighting wars that it started itself.
Many of the wars were started by Europe. The USA just went in to clean up. Israel (and thus, much of the middle east instability) was a British invention, Yugoslavia was created by the European powers, sort of an "other" category. If WWI hadn't ended so poorly, we wouldn't have had WWII. And the end of WWII was so screwed up that we made WWIII, but we (global, not US) managed to not link every bad decision made in th 1940s into a single war, but it was a war that spanned the globe, just in isolated skirmishes, rather than a coordinated effort.
It's deeply unclear that the USA is single handedly responsible for a net drop in state-on-state violence. Certainly just looking at surface facts would suggest it's the opposite: the world would have been even more peaceful if the USA had a less aggressive foreign policy
Yes, like the less aggressive foreign policies in the 1930s prevented WWII.
I've been corrected about virtual memory multiple times now. I don't recall DOS having virtual memory. "paging" in DOS was loading the file in parts from disk, not from virtual memory. I don't recall ever having seen a pagefile in DOS, but then, I stopped around 3.3 (4 sucked, and 5 was better and worse than 4, 6.22 was better than 3.3, but only if you had more RAM)
So there's never been a sealed court record, and some countries have name suppression. Good to know reality doesn't exist because it conflicts with your personal opinion.
Tell me, how is Ukraine different from the Lakiota/Dakota land? How is the U.S. position different from that of Russia?
When was Lakiota/Dakota independence recognized by the USA? Then occupied by the USA, then returned to independence, then "invaded" again, while still officially recognizing independence? Then they aren't the same.
A single nuke, at 500 miles above Kansas would EMP almost all of North America. That'd kill most of the US. And all you need is a single nuke. That's doable for a non-nuclear rogue state. How are those North Korean missile launches going?
If the nuke drops here and the EMP takes everything out, I'm getting on a carburated motorbike (no electronics, once I push-start it), and collecting the family (yes, too many on the bike to be legal, but I don't think anyone would stop me). The hardest part about a blast is transportation to get everyone from work/school back home.
"It ud" is how it's pronounced, maybe "it id" depending on accent. It's common in written and spoken English. And yes, I'm informal on Slashdot. Even though it leaves me with people correcting non-errors.
The publishers I've dealt with won't accept a written manuscript. You must submit it electronically. I got your post, but pointed out the errors for anyone that might read it and not get it. CTFD.
What makes you think he doesn't save the file and sneaker-net it to his Internet connected computer for sending to the publisher? If he weren't doing that, he should be writing on a typewriter. He obviously doesn't.
640k is enough if the processor loads in only part. I remember scrolling in documents of that age in DOS. It was painful. It'd have to read the parts of the document you tried to scroll to. There's no reason you need 640k of RAM to read a 2M file. You just can't have all of it in RAM at the same time. That's how it used to be. The idea of ramdriving every program by loading 100% of every program you are running and 100% of every file used by every one of those programs is silly, but it's the new norm. You don't read what you want, you read it all, even if you don't need it.
Shit like that is one of the many reasons someone might like the "old" way. It was faster/better. He's writing, not doing a global search and replace (which would be painful on something like that),
I have no idea of that's how wordstar did it, but I used some that did, I just don't remember which, as most didn't survive the transition to Windows, so they are gone. No need to indicate experience with Write when nobody has heard of it and will assume I made an error.
Right now, the kids have iMessage on a WiFi iPad. They can text Mom's phone, but not get into too much trouble. It has Skype too, but we generally keep that off on our phones to prevent runaway data use. But mine are young enough to not be left alone at home yet. And we have old phones with no SIM they can call 911 on. They know what to call and when, so they can be left alone, but aren't.
This is why the term changed from "less than lethal" to "less lethal".
I don't know. I just used the term as used by the person I was replying to.
There are no "non-lethal" measures I've seen that haven't killed. Properly used, clubs are supposed to be non-lethal. But they too have killed.
The fatality was Victoria Snelgrove, she was at a post-game riot and the round missed a guy throwing a bottle and struck her in the eye.
Yes, so it didn't even kill the person aimed at or performing bad, but an "innocent bystander" who was sufficiently non-innocent because she was near bad people was killed.
That you are dumb doesn't make me wrong. Both numbers are correct, but neither is valid. Since you object to everything I say, try saying something yourself. Explain the difference in the numbers. If you can't, then the only person lying, I mean "guessing" around here is you.
So what happens next? If the data is valuable, and the results from Google (and other public sites) becomes unreliable, how long before Experian or some other data aggregator begins selling their own version of uncorrupted search results and personal data that you don't get to see and edit?
Like the site that emails me telling me I have a publicly indexed criminal record (a speeding ticket I beat in court 10+ years ago - tickets were crimes in Texas at the time). For a fee, they'd "delete" my record on their indexing site. Blackmail pure and simple. So I ignored them. It'd be nice if such "indexing" sites could be ordered to stop perfoming blackmail. They wanted money to stop a harm created by them.
Equally valid, if this really does become an issue with the big search engines, how long before everybody starts using the new startup from Indonesia or the Phillipines?
How would that help? If it's illegal in France to not delete when ordered to do so, are thy going to route around the 100 countries that have such laws, and serve the remaining few only? Doesn't sound like a very useful startup.
Yes, you can't refute the logic or the argument, so you attack the person. It's my personal problem that you don't make sense and are logically inconsistent.
Yes, you argue that the reliability of an electronic device is poor. Then argue that pacemakers don't count because the clearly prove you wrong. *That*'s the no true Scotsman.
Simply relying on anything powered by a battery reduces the reliability to well below that essential 99.999%.
Simply wrong. Pacemakers prove you wrong. Well, until you No True Scotsman them.
Slashdot Mirror
You schedule the system to turn on and off for hours at a time. The satellites *must* cover all of the Earth at a lower latitude than the covered area, but nobody can keep them from cycling the service on and off over specific areas. The satellites must cover the area, but the service doesn't have to.
This was originally envisaged as a 50/50 joint public/private venture, but no companies actually stepped up to take part in the expensive R&D effort of re-building something that already exists.
R&D for something that exists (presuming you don't have to work around patents) should be much cheaper.
like China, which always speaks of "when we invade Taiwan", never "IF we invade Taiwan"
China claims it does now, and always has, owned Taiwan. The USA hasn't disagreed, but has said "regardless of who owns the land, will you respect the local government?" And China says "for now." *Never* has China indicated anything other than 100% ownership of Taiwan. And have indicated that "invasion" of Taiwan would be like calling the US naval base in Hawaii an "invasion of sovereign Hawaii."
If the stable supply of oil decreases, what happens to the price?
But Bush said we went in to restore the democracy of Kuwait, because we defend democracy.
Pax Americana as a theory might hold water, if it weren't for the fact that the USA has spent most of the latter half of the 20th century fighting wars that it started itself.
Many of the wars were started by Europe. The USA just went in to clean up. Israel (and thus, much of the middle east instability) was a British invention, Yugoslavia was created by the European powers, sort of an "other" category. If WWI hadn't ended so poorly, we wouldn't have had WWII. And the end of WWII was so screwed up that we made WWIII, but we (global, not US) managed to not link every bad decision made in th 1940s into a single war, but it was a war that spanned the globe, just in isolated skirmishes, rather than a coordinated effort.
It's deeply unclear that the USA is single handedly responsible for a net drop in state-on-state violence. Certainly just looking at surface facts would suggest it's the opposite: the world would have been even more peaceful if the USA had a less aggressive foreign policy
Yes, like the less aggressive foreign policies in the 1930s prevented WWII.
I've been corrected about virtual memory multiple times now. I don't recall DOS having virtual memory. "paging" in DOS was loading the file in parts from disk, not from virtual memory. I don't recall ever having seen a pagefile in DOS, but then, I stopped around 3.3 (4 sucked, and 5 was better and worse than 4, 6.22 was better than 3.3, but only if you had more RAM)
So there's never been a sealed court record, and some countries have name suppression. Good to know reality doesn't exist because it conflicts with your personal opinion.
Tell me, how is Ukraine different from the Lakiota/Dakota land? How is the U.S. position different from that of Russia?
When was Lakiota/Dakota independence recognized by the USA? Then occupied by the USA, then returned to independence, then "invaded" again, while still officially recognizing independence? Then they aren't the same.
A single nuke, at 500 miles above Kansas would EMP almost all of North America. That'd kill most of the US. And all you need is a single nuke. That's doable for a non-nuclear rogue state. How are those North Korean missile launches going?
You correct me because I'm right, but it disrupts your wrong opinion. If you weren't so certain in your idiocy, you could listen, rather than correct.
In a Mercedes Diesel, you just start driving away, and the smoke screen will cover your escape.
If the nuke drops here and the EMP takes everything out, I'm getting on a carburated motorbike (no electronics, once I push-start it), and collecting the family (yes, too many on the bike to be legal, but I don't think anyone would stop me). The hardest part about a blast is transportation to get everyone from work/school back home.
"It ud" is how it's pronounced, maybe "it id" depending on accent. It's common in written and spoken English. And yes, I'm informal on Slashdot. Even though it leaves me with people correcting non-errors.
The publishers I've dealt with won't accept a written manuscript. You must submit it electronically. I got your post, but pointed out the errors for anyone that might read it and not get it. CTFD.
What makes you think he doesn't save the file and sneaker-net it to his Internet connected computer for sending to the publisher? If he weren't doing that, he should be writing on a typewriter. He obviously doesn't.
640k is enough if the processor loads in only part. I remember scrolling in documents of that age in DOS. It was painful. It'd have to read the parts of the document you tried to scroll to. There's no reason you need 640k of RAM to read a 2M file. You just can't have all of it in RAM at the same time. That's how it used to be. The idea of ramdriving every program by loading 100% of every program you are running and 100% of every file used by every one of those programs is silly, but it's the new norm. You don't read what you want, you read it all, even if you don't need it.
Shit like that is one of the many reasons someone might like the "old" way. It was faster/better. He's writing, not doing a global search and replace (which would be painful on something like that),
I have no idea of that's how wordstar did it, but I used some that did, I just don't remember which, as most didn't survive the transition to Windows, so they are gone. No need to indicate experience with Write when nobody has heard of it and will assume I made an error.
Right now, the kids have iMessage on a WiFi iPad. They can text Mom's phone, but not get into too much trouble. It has Skype too, but we generally keep that off on our phones to prevent runaway data use. But mine are young enough to not be left alone at home yet. And we have old phones with no SIM they can call 911 on. They know what to call and when, so they can be left alone, but aren't.
This is why the term changed from "less than lethal" to "less lethal".
I don't know. I just used the term as used by the person I was replying to.
There are no "non-lethal" measures I've seen that haven't killed. Properly used, clubs are supposed to be non-lethal. But they too have killed.
The fatality was Victoria Snelgrove, she was at a post-game riot and the round missed a guy throwing a bottle and struck her in the eye.
Yes, so it didn't even kill the person aimed at or performing bad, but an "innocent bystander" who was sufficiently non-innocent because she was near bad people was killed.
That you are dumb doesn't make me wrong. Both numbers are correct, but neither is valid. Since you object to everything I say, try saying something yourself. Explain the difference in the numbers. If you can't, then the only person lying, I mean "guessing" around here is you.
So what happens next? If the data is valuable, and the results from Google (and other public sites) becomes unreliable, how long before Experian or some other data aggregator begins selling their own version of uncorrupted search results and personal data that you don't get to see and edit?
Like the site that emails me telling me I have a publicly indexed criminal record (a speeding ticket I beat in court 10+ years ago - tickets were crimes in Texas at the time). For a fee, they'd "delete" my record on their indexing site. Blackmail pure and simple. So I ignored them. It'd be nice if such "indexing" sites could be ordered to stop perfoming blackmail. They wanted money to stop a harm created by them.
Equally valid, if this really does become an issue with the big search engines, how long before everybody starts using the new startup from Indonesia or the Phillipines?
How would that help? If it's illegal in France to not delete when ordered to do so, are thy going to route around the 100 countries that have such laws, and serve the remaining few only? Doesn't sound like a very useful startup.
Yes, you can't refute the logic or the argument, so you attack the person. It's my personal problem that you don't make sense and are logically inconsistent.
Simply relying on anything powered by a battery reduces the reliability to well below that essential 99.999%.
Simply wrong. Pacemakers prove you wrong. Well, until you No True Scotsman them.
So your argument is that Google Cache doesn't exist? How's sticking your head in the sand working for you?
And if the battery pacemaker was 100 times more reliable, which would you pick?
Sure. Also look at the hit rate between people and cops. People hit what they aim at more.