Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
All reports seem to state that the use of computers correlates with lower academic performance.
Maybe as a means of distributing open source text books economically to the neglected parts of the world, this might be a winner, but it's difficult to see that it would be more economical than a cheap printing -- a paperback costs little more than USD1 to print.
It's how your small, self-selecting group bonds. It's how you ensure that your groupthink supports your belief in the quality of your work.
Do you also think that the teams that develop software for aircraft, space systems, nuclear reactors, and other critical systems are shouting insults at each other in order to product "better IT"?
On the other hand, a great many men are capable of being competent, professional software developers without fantasising that we're engaged in a macho dick swinging contest. When a community behaves in this this fashion it excludes others from wanting to participate regardless of how skilled they are, and the development community self-selects the small proportion of probably-male developers who are willing to engage in the fantasy.
At the same time, the community will claim that it acts in that way because it promotes some kind of libertarian lord-of-the-flies only-the-strong-survive technical meritocracy, without recognising that others just don't have to play their game.
Your argument, that the presence of an innocent explanation let you consider the advocates to be confidence crooks, is based on your belief that the blueprints were for VH-3.
They were not -- they were for the VH-60, which started coming into service in the mid-let 1980's for VIP duties, nearly 10 years after the Iranian Revolution.
At least the Manhattan Project was possible according the the laws of physics, and represented mostly an engineering problem. Modern procurement seems to be a bunch of engineering trying to do what the laws of physics disallow -- like detecting over the horizon objects with straight-line signals.
The top officials in the Pentagon have little personal incentive to discriminate between what will and what will not work, when they can arrange massive contracts for companies that will then offer them a senior position when they retire on their 100% government salaries.
It would be wrong to characterise this as entirely the fault of politicians, beach the electors also do not care if it's worthwhile or not.
It works for the politicians to do this because their local electorate recognise that the cost will fall mostly on other tax payers, and each of the tax payers is trying to screw as many as the others as possible, and they'll vote for the candidate that will be complicit in the scheme.
I very much doubt that the military is above classifying the failures and limitations of their systems, just as they classify the capabilities. They have even more reason to do so, as it protects their budgets and careers as well.
Is there not a principle that offence always beats defense?
Many of these vast military overspends appear to be based on an assumption that the potential opponents will never adapt to the new technology. I'm no expert, but is part of the analysis of a new system or strategy not, "how would we adapt to this if the enemy had this system, and does it therefore make sense to do it?"
So here we have a system designed to tackle some number of incoming missiles. Even if it's perfect, the enemy adapts by using slightly more advanced decoys, more missiles, different trajectories... and the new defensive technology is a military failure (granted the shareholders and C-levels have made enough money to buy their own remote island). I'm sure there are many more examples -- stealth aircraft that are visible to radar with a longer (less "modern"?) wavelength?
You also have to question the motivation of people who will spend billions to avoid a slight chance of a large number of war deaths, but are unwilling to spend money on a continual stream of preventable medical deaths.
If you are concerned about the possible existence of beings whose genetic material is derived from more than two other beings, you should perhaps meditate on the meaning of having grandparents.
It may be an error to confuse scientific reality with newspaper headlines that are designed to stimulate sales.
The notes will be restored and then popped into a glass display case with one or two pages visible, with a sort-of description of why they are important.
Pretty much all of Bletchley is like this, unfortunately. Stuff on display that you are not going to understand, such as copies of Turing's early mathematical papers with only the first page showing.
The problem with the whole Bletchley Park experience is that it was obviously extremely important, but is practically beyond all explanation for the ordinary punter. I think I might be able to intellectually struggle through an explanation of some of it, but the displays do not explain it in enough detail to help with that. Overall, my visit felt like a patchwork of different explanations of the same few concepts using poster boards, audio devices and video and interactive displays. It's padded out with various "wartime experience" bits here and there.
It probably seems like a very negative attitude, but a technical chap in his mid-forties with a couple of bright teenagers in tow ought to be right in the target demographic for Bletchley, but I'm practically embarrassed to say that I ended up drinking weak hot chocolate in the cafe and agreeing with my boys that it was all rather dull.
Special commendation for the rack of old bicycles at the end of one of the huts, with a hidden speaker to give you the authentic experience of what squeaky bicycle wheels sounded like in the 1940's. Or something?
probably shouldn't have surfed to that URL at work though..... but their site actually comes across as quite rational and reasonable. Not what I was expecting at all.
It really comes to something when a website for a type of church can be considered NSFW. I understand though -- in my 10 years in corporate America I sure kept my atheistic head down. Nothing would have finished a career quicker than letting my screaming, wall-thumping, secretary-humping, second-wife-divorcing bosses know that I was not also a Christian.
Slashdot Mirror
... the kid was not arrested ...
Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
Mosanto should get in the business of GM bees?
... I feel sorry for. They'll need plenty of financial compensation for this fuckup.
Which is tantamount to saying that it's important that the government just spends money, regardless of the end purpose, no?
... between tuna caught in nets or on lines, but I want to know about that too.
All reports seem to state that the use of computers correlates with lower academic performance.
Maybe as a means of distributing open source text books economically to the neglected parts of the world, this might be a winner, but it's difficult to see that it would be more economical than a cheap printing -- a paperback costs little more than USD1 to print.
When you contradicted him by producing the evidence that he was wrong, did that lead to a pay rise and a pat on the back? ;)
Wage theft: "the illegal withholding of wages or the denial of benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee".
Possibly you mean that they were not earning their salary?
This is not a "men vs women" thing, it's an "asshole vs decent person" thing independent of gender.
If you doubt that your half an hour-tops "hell of a lot of digging" has uncovered what "isn't the best evidence possible", I think I'd agree with you.
It's how your small, self-selecting group bonds. It's how you ensure that your groupthink supports your belief in the quality of your work.
Do you also think that the teams that develop software for aircraft, space systems, nuclear reactors, and other critical systems are shouting insults at each other in order to product "better IT"?
On the other hand, a great many men are capable of being competent, professional software developers without fantasising that we're engaged in a macho dick swinging contest. When a community behaves in this this fashion it excludes others from wanting to participate regardless of how skilled they are, and the development community self-selects the small proportion of probably-male developers who are willing to engage in the fantasy.
At the same time, the community will claim that it acts in that way because it promotes some kind of libertarian lord-of-the-flies only-the-strong-survive technical meritocracy, without recognising that others just don't have to play their game.
The good chaps at Clipperz moved to https://1984.is/# for reasons that they explained out in this blog: https://clipperz.is/blog/2013/...
Their logic seems compelling.
Your argument, that the presence of an innocent explanation let you consider the advocates to be confidence crooks, is based on your belief that the blueprints were for VH-3.
They were not -- they were for the VH-60, which started coming into service in the mid-let 1980's for VIP duties, nearly 10 years after the Iranian Revolution.
Well I'd prefer to characterise it as "if you're looking to stop the military from pissing the people's money away".
At least the Manhattan Project was possible according the the laws of physics, and represented mostly an engineering problem. Modern procurement seems to be a bunch of engineering trying to do what the laws of physics disallow -- like detecting over the horizon objects with straight-line signals.
The top officials in the Pentagon have little personal incentive to discriminate between what will and what will not work, when they can arrange massive contracts for companies that will then offer them a senior position when they retire on their 100% government salaries.
It would be wrong to characterise this as entirely the fault of politicians, beach the electors also do not care if it's worthwhile or not.
It works for the politicians to do this because their local electorate recognise that the cost will fall mostly on other tax payers, and each of the tax payers is trying to screw as many as the others as possible, and they'll vote for the candidate that will be complicit in the scheme.
I very much doubt that the military is above classifying the failures and limitations of their systems, just as they classify the capabilities. They have even more reason to do so, as it protects their budgets and careers as well.
Is there not a principle that offence always beats defense?
Many of these vast military overspends appear to be based on an assumption that the potential opponents will never adapt to the new technology. I'm no expert, but is part of the analysis of a new system or strategy not, "how would we adapt to this if the enemy had this system, and does it therefore make sense to do it?"
So here we have a system designed to tackle some number of incoming missiles. Even if it's perfect, the enemy adapts by using slightly more advanced decoys, more missiles, different trajectories ... and the new defensive technology is a military failure (granted the shareholders and C-levels have made enough money to buy their own remote island). I'm sure there are many more examples -- stealth aircraft that are visible to radar with a longer (less "modern"?) wavelength?
You also have to question the motivation of people who will spend billions to avoid a slight chance of a large number of war deaths, but are unwilling to spend money on a continual stream of preventable medical deaths.
If you are concerned about the possible existence of beings whose genetic material is derived from more than two other beings, you should perhaps meditate on the meaning of having grandparents.
It may be an error to confuse scientific reality with newspaper headlines that are designed to stimulate sales.
The notes will be restored and then popped into a glass display case with one or two pages visible, with a sort-of description of why they are important.
Pretty much all of Bletchley is like this, unfortunately. Stuff on display that you are not going to understand, such as copies of Turing's early mathematical papers with only the first page showing.
The problem with the whole Bletchley Park experience is that it was obviously extremely important, but is practically beyond all explanation for the ordinary punter. I think I might be able to intellectually struggle through an explanation of some of it, but the displays do not explain it in enough detail to help with that. Overall, my visit felt like a patchwork of different explanations of the same few concepts using poster boards, audio devices and video and interactive displays. It's padded out with various "wartime experience" bits here and there.
It probably seems like a very negative attitude, but a technical chap in his mid-forties with a couple of bright teenagers in tow ought to be right in the target demographic for Bletchley, but I'm practically embarrassed to say that I ended up drinking weak hot chocolate in the cafe and agreeing with my boys that it was all rather dull.
Special commendation for the rack of old bicycles at the end of one of the huts, with a hidden speaker to give you the authentic experience of what squeaky bicycle wheels sounded like in the 1940's. Or something?
You're weird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
In this case, "Yes"
probably shouldn't have surfed to that URL at work though..... but their site actually comes across as quite rational and reasonable. Not what I was expecting at all.
It really comes to something when a website for a type of church can be considered NSFW. I understand though -- in my 10 years in corporate America I sure kept my atheistic head down. Nothing would have finished a career quicker than letting my screaming, wall-thumping, secretary-humping, second-wife-divorcing bosses know that I was not also a Christian.