Well, I expect Canadian scientists are pretty darn productive in the winter. When it takes a half hour to bundle up for lunch, you probably eat at your desk a lot more:)
Did you miss the fact that the "T" in THAAD stands for "Terminal"? This missile isn't designed to "catch" anything. In fact, since it doesn't have a warhead it wouldn't do much if it could. It's designed to intercept the other missile as it comes back to earth. Intercept is something we've been doing for years with other programs, and quite often missiles designed to intercept incoming missiles will phisically impact them. This isn't technology that's generations ahead of stuff we have in deployment.
You're assigning missions to this missile that it doesn't have. It's not designed to protect "us". It's designed to protect army (as another poster pointed out) troops in a localized area, and there's no technical reason why it wouldn't work.
I'll never understand why people think a technology can never work because it doesn't work immediately. These kinds of things take time and money. SM-2 didn't work very well on the first day, either, but I'd want my affairs in order if one were fired at me today. Calling THAAD "vaporware" is just foolish.
Hmmmm. You are correct. The reason I thought it was navy was I did some peripheral work on THAAD testing while I was contracting with the navy. It's not normal for the navy to do that kind of work with the army. Although, come to think of it, we did Hawk testing too.
Okay, first of all your link doesn't support your argument at all. Suzuki is talking about boost phase interception, which is a whole different kettle of fish. You can't really use missiles for boost phase interception unless they're stationed in orbit. And why do you say this technology is "the worst kind"? Technology isn't good or bad, it just is. Pretty much every first-world country plus China and India is doing ballistic missile defense research - we would be foolish not to.
THAAD isn't designed to be part of some national missile defense shield. It's a navy designed to be "theater" defense, which is much different and much easier. It's supposed to defend the fleet and, presumably, beachheads from balistic missile attack.
Conventional short and medium range balistic missiles will be more and more a feature of the modern battlefield because GPS makes them much more cost-effective than they used to be. Think of this system as a navy version of Patriot. Will it intercept nukes? Probably, but just because it's not 100% effective doesn't mean it's useless.
I download a lot of anime myself, but come on, aside from the hentai pretty much everything can be purchased these days. Five years ago that wasn't true, but now?
Actually, it might make sense. We already have a GPS guided bomb that will accept aimpoint corrections over a data link - terminal guidance. The idea is you have an F-15E, which has a very sophisticated targetting radar, tooling around some patch of ocean picking out targets. Then a B-1 or B-52 lofts smart bombs from fifteen miles away and hands off control to the F-15. Then if the target makes a course change the F-15 tells the bomb to change its aimpoint.
Probably only works out for relatively big, slow-moving targets like ships. But consider you could replace the F-15 with a UAV and have the UAV supply the projectile with terminal guidance. The UAV doesn't need anything but communications gear and a targetting pod, so it could be really small and stealthy with a good on-station time.
You might even be able to target a ship using a satellite feed.
I'm not "wigglin'" around anything. You accuse me of not having facts and yet you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Mitt Romney does not own a majority stake in Clear Channel. He was the co-founder of Bain Capital in 1984, but has long since divested any interest. The other partner in Bain's acquisition of Clear Channel is Thomas H. Lee Partners, which is a heavy donor to the Democratic Party. In other words, this whole "Mitt Romney owns Clear Channel" meme is unadulterated bullshit. How is that for facts, or don't facts count unless Al Frankin bequeathes them to you?
Secondly, you're the one who referred to a small market radio station's 11th place ranking as "_top rated_". Sure, it's the top rated talk radio, but so what? Clear Channel isn't in the talk radio business, they're in the radio business - they thought they could get a better market share from a sports network, and they're probably right.
As far as the "boycott" of advertisers, I couldn't find any "there" there. It looks far less like an organized boycott and far more like a bunch of advertisers who know how to read the Arbitron ratings. There was the "ABC Memo", but that memo could be read a couple different ways, so without more than that it looks to me like yet another case of paranoid leftist fantasy.
You would be a lot more successful debating somebody who doesn't know how to use Google.
I think you may be associating non-NPR programs with NPR news.
Well, as a listener I don't really care whether APM or NPR actually produced the show. I've listened to a lot of NPR stations over the years, and the programming for all of them is pretty much built around the same core of shows - Morning Edition, Fresh Air, Prarie Home Companion, Car Talk, This American Life... so the exact mechanism the same shows get on all my NPR stations isn't that important to me.
I don't actually have a problem with left-leaning radio shows, by the way. It's just that the shows all either lean left (like Prarie Home Companion and Fresh Air) or don't have a slant that I can see, er, hear (like Car Talk).
I can't say I've heard NPR news reports that PROMOTE gay issues.
I probably shouldn't have written "promote" LGBT. Maybe "promote awareness" would have been better. In any event the stories on the show and the comments the hosts make would certainly be considered "liberal". Understandably so, since that's a community not readily accepted by social conservatives.
Does reporting on the gay marriage controversy imply an endorsement? If yes, then Fox News is guilty as well.
The difference between Fox News and NPR from my point of view is Fox News isn't supported by my tax dollars. But that's not the point anyway. My point was any commercial venture for progressive radio is going to have a tough time, because NPR is progressive enough to be competition for some portion of their potential listeners. Air America has lots of problems, but the biggest one is they think their competition is Rush Limbaugh, when in reality it's NPR.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty conservative and I like NPR. I rarely agree with the politics, but they do discuss political issues without making the kind of personal attacks on individuals you see on AA and Rush Limbaugh. However, I don't see how a serious persion could say NPR, or maybe more accurately NPR programming, doesn't have a leftward bias.
Um. Yes. Air America has had plenty of time to grow an audience and they're not even close to being able to pay the bills. So even if they find another "white knight" to keep them on the air the network is a failure. As far as I can see the only reason they lasted this long is media outlets are exempt from McCain-Feingold restrictions. A long-running political commercial, more or less. With the Dems in control of Congress I expect it's gonna be much harder for them to find funding.
And there's not much wishful thinking on my part. AA simply doesn't have enough listeners to matter in the great scheme of things, and it's hard to believe any of the listeners it does have will change their politics if it goes off the air. So I don't care one way or the other.
If you're talking about WXXM, I'm not sure eleventh place in the ratings for a small market like Madison qualifies as "_top rated_". They may actually have done better as Fox Sports.
Well, there are a lot of people who think AA was really just a dodge to get around McCain-Feingold restrictions for the 2006 election cycle. So they kept finding "white knight" funding until the Dems took Congress back, even though it was pretty clear early on they would never have the audience to be profitable.
If you think NPR doesn't have a liberal bias you are quite a bit to the left of the average American. I listen to NPR exclisively when I drive and I see countless examples of leftist mindset. Granted, they aren't as vitriolic as Air America, but the bias is there.
How centrist is a show promoting LGBT issues or one that airs ten speeches by Clinton administration people for every Republican? News that goes on endlessly about the perils of electronic voting by has nothing about registration fraud. The other day I heard Garrison Keillor excoriating ICE for trying to do its job. Centrist? I think not.
Because Republicans aren't a monolithic group. The Rockerfeller Republicans (like Bush) don't care about this kind of thing, just like they didn't care about the first amendment implications of McCain-Feingold. They figure every few years they'll get control of whatever committee regulates "fairness", and it will be just another lever of power they can work from Washington. In fact, they probably like this bill because it might drive all political talk off the airwaves. That's what we need in our electronic media - more kid and dog stories.
But traditional conservatives hate this kind of crap because we realize the government already has way too much power to influence what you hear and see, but especially what you don't hear and see. I don't understand how "liberals" can go on about fascism and police state on the one hand and yet propose more state control of the airwaves on the other. Granted, the left has been in control of NPR for all these years, but do you think that will continue indefinitely?
What are you talking about? You can hear the majority view in every market, even if you don't count satellite. What issue isn't getting the majority view? I'm suspecting you're conflating your own view with that of the majority.
Yeah, and you left out NPR, which is partially paid for by my tax dollars. Do lefties even realize the reason Air America failed is they were competing for the same viewers as NPR?
That may all be true, but as I responded to one of the other posters, do you really think you can outperform six guys in Mumbai on a long-term basis? Really?
And even if you can, does your boss' boss' boss know that?
Sure, but do you really think you can outproduce six guys in India with the same education as yours?
This is really no different than what happened in the auto industry during the '80s and '90s. All the expansion was ouside the US, all the contraction was inside the US. After awhile you don't have many US employees.
'[Offshoring] was used almost entirely as a form of expansion, not as a replacement.'
Yeah but when the economy turns down, who are they gonna lay off, the guy in California making $50/hour or the guy in Mumbai making $9/hour? Sure, everyone's happy when things are humming along, but the cracks will show later.
DC-X was a very successful program. It had many successful flights until the Air Force turned it over to NASA and NASA crashed it on the first flight. Then they cancelled it.
Well, the first Raiders came out before ET, which is where I think Spielberg got the idea blockbusters need kids to be successful (as if Raiders wasn't successful). And yeah, I count young Indy in Last Crusade - the flashbacks didn't really add to the story.
I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president. I worked for Uncle Sam. When you do anything connected with the military you sign away your right to discuss it. Ever. There's nothing here that has anything to do with the first amendment.
And if you think the administration is fascist you should probably crack a history book and actually try to understand the meaning of the words you're writing. If Bush was really a fascist you wouldn't be reading this, since you'd be in a shallow mass grave somewhere. Are you so disconnected from reality?
I think you'd have to use it along with whitelists. I'd happily put amazon.com and some of the other vendors I use on my whitelist, and I wouldn't even blame them for saying "If you want email from us you need to put us on your whitelist."
I'm at a loss to think of an example of a service that generates large volumes of legitimate unsolicited email.
As for the botnets? Well, that's still only 12 per minute, which is a heck of a lot better than what we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I expect Canadian scientists are pretty darn productive in the winter. When it takes a half hour to bundle up for lunch, you probably eat at your desk a lot more :)
"I suppooooose it could be a bit of pre-animate matter caught in a matrix..."
Did you miss the fact that the "T" in THAAD stands for "Terminal"? This missile isn't designed to "catch" anything. In fact, since it doesn't have a warhead it wouldn't do much if it could. It's designed to intercept the other missile as it comes back to earth. Intercept is something we've been doing for years with other programs, and quite often missiles designed to intercept incoming missiles will phisically impact them. This isn't technology that's generations ahead of stuff we have in deployment.
You're assigning missions to this missile that it doesn't have. It's not designed to protect "us". It's designed to protect army (as another poster pointed out) troops in a localized area, and there's no technical reason why it wouldn't work.
I'll never understand why people think a technology can never work because it doesn't work immediately. These kinds of things take time and money. SM-2 didn't work very well on the first day, either, but I'd want my affairs in order if one were fired at me today. Calling THAAD "vaporware" is just foolish.
Hmmmm. You are correct. The reason I thought it was navy was I did some peripheral work on THAAD testing while I was contracting with the navy. It's not normal for the navy to do that kind of work with the army. Although, come to think of it, we did Hawk testing too.
Okay, first of all your link doesn't support your argument at all. Suzuki is talking about boost phase interception, which is a whole different kettle of fish. You can't really use missiles for boost phase interception unless they're stationed in orbit. And why do you say this technology is "the worst kind"? Technology isn't good or bad, it just is. Pretty much every first-world country plus China and India is doing ballistic missile defense research - we would be foolish not to.
THAAD isn't designed to be part of some national missile defense shield. It's a navy designed to be "theater" defense, which is much different and much easier. It's supposed to defend the fleet and, presumably, beachheads from balistic missile attack.
Conventional short and medium range balistic missiles will be more and more a feature of the modern battlefield because GPS makes them much more cost-effective than they used to be. Think of this system as a navy version of Patriot. Will it intercept nukes? Probably, but just because it's not 100% effective doesn't mean it's useless.
I download a lot of anime myself, but come on, aside from the hentai pretty much everything can be purchased these days. Five years ago that wasn't true, but now?
Actually, it might make sense. We already have a GPS guided bomb that will accept aimpoint corrections over a data link - terminal guidance. The idea is you have an F-15E, which has a very sophisticated targetting radar, tooling around some patch of ocean picking out targets. Then a B-1 or B-52 lofts smart bombs from fifteen miles away and hands off control to the F-15. Then if the target makes a course change the F-15 tells the bomb to change its aimpoint.
Probably only works out for relatively big, slow-moving targets like ships. But consider you could replace the F-15 with a UAV and have the UAV supply the projectile with terminal guidance. The UAV doesn't need anything but communications gear and a targetting pod, so it could be really small and stealthy with a good on-station time.
You might even be able to target a ship using a satellite feed.
I'm not "wigglin'" around anything. You accuse me of not having facts and yet you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Mitt Romney does not own a majority stake in Clear Channel. He was the co-founder of Bain Capital in 1984, but has long since divested any interest. The other partner in Bain's acquisition of Clear Channel is Thomas H. Lee Partners, which is a heavy donor to the Democratic Party. In other words, this whole "Mitt Romney owns Clear Channel" meme is unadulterated bullshit. How is that for facts, or don't facts count unless Al Frankin bequeathes them to you?
Secondly, you're the one who referred to a small market radio station's 11th place ranking as "_top rated_". Sure, it's the top rated talk radio, but so what? Clear Channel isn't in the talk radio business, they're in the radio business - they thought they could get a better market share from a sports network, and they're probably right.
As far as the "boycott" of advertisers, I couldn't find any "there" there. It looks far less like an organized boycott and far more like a bunch of advertisers who know how to read the Arbitron ratings. There was the "ABC Memo", but that memo could be read a couple different ways, so without more than that it looks to me like yet another case of paranoid leftist fantasy.
You would be a lot more successful debating somebody who doesn't know how to use Google.
Well, as a listener I don't really care whether APM or NPR actually produced the show. I've listened to a lot of NPR stations over the years, and the programming for all of them is pretty much built around the same core of shows - Morning Edition, Fresh Air, Prarie Home Companion, Car Talk, This American Life... so the exact mechanism the same shows get on all my NPR stations isn't that important to me.
I don't actually have a problem with left-leaning radio shows, by the way. It's just that the shows all either lean left (like Prarie Home Companion and Fresh Air) or don't have a slant that I can see, er, hear (like Car Talk).
I probably shouldn't have written "promote" LGBT. Maybe "promote awareness" would have been better. In any event the stories on the show and the comments the hosts make would certainly be considered "liberal". Understandably so, since that's a community not readily accepted by social conservatives.
The difference between Fox News and NPR from my point of view is Fox News isn't supported by my tax dollars. But that's not the point anyway. My point was any commercial venture for progressive radio is going to have a tough time, because NPR is progressive enough to be competition for some portion of their potential listeners. Air America has lots of problems, but the biggest one is they think their competition is Rush Limbaugh, when in reality it's NPR.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty conservative and I like NPR. I rarely agree with the politics, but they do discuss political issues without making the kind of personal attacks on individuals you see on AA and Rush Limbaugh. However, I don't see how a serious persion could say NPR, or maybe more accurately NPR programming, doesn't have a leftward bias.
By the way, your link didn't work.
Um. Yes. Air America has had plenty of time to grow an audience and they're not even close to being able to pay the bills. So even if they find another "white knight" to keep them on the air the network is a failure. As far as I can see the only reason they lasted this long is media outlets are exempt from McCain-Feingold restrictions. A long-running political commercial, more or less. With the Dems in control of Congress I expect it's gonna be much harder for them to find funding.
And there's not much wishful thinking on my part. AA simply doesn't have enough listeners to matter in the great scheme of things, and it's hard to believe any of the listeners it does have will change their politics if it goes off the air. So I don't care one way or the other.
If you're talking about WXXM, I'm not sure eleventh place in the ratings for a small market like Madison qualifies as "_top rated_". They may actually have done better as Fox Sports.
Well, there are a lot of people who think AA was really just a dodge to get around McCain-Feingold restrictions for the 2006 election cycle. So they kept finding "white knight" funding until the Dems took Congress back, even though it was pretty clear early on they would never have the audience to be profitable.
Sort of a really long political ad.
If you think NPR doesn't have a liberal bias you are quite a bit to the left of the average American. I listen to NPR exclisively when I drive and I see countless examples of leftist mindset. Granted, they aren't as vitriolic as Air America, but the bias is there.
How centrist is a show promoting LGBT issues or one that airs ten speeches by Clinton administration people for every Republican? News that goes on endlessly about the perils of electronic voting by has nothing about registration fraud. The other day I heard Garrison Keillor excoriating ICE for trying to do its job. Centrist? I think not.
Because Republicans aren't a monolithic group. The Rockerfeller Republicans (like Bush) don't care about this kind of thing, just like they didn't care about the first amendment implications of McCain-Feingold. They figure every few years they'll get control of whatever committee regulates "fairness", and it will be just another lever of power they can work from Washington. In fact, they probably like this bill because it might drive all political talk off the airwaves. That's what we need in our electronic media - more kid and dog stories.
But traditional conservatives hate this kind of crap because we realize the government already has way too much power to influence what you hear and see, but especially what you don't hear and see. I don't understand how "liberals" can go on about fascism and police state on the one hand and yet propose more state control of the airwaves on the other. Granted, the left has been in control of NPR for all these years, but do you think that will continue indefinitely?
What are you talking about? You can hear the majority view in every market, even if you don't count satellite. What issue isn't getting the majority view? I'm suspecting you're conflating your own view with that of the majority.
Yeah, and you left out NPR, which is partially paid for by my tax dollars. Do lefties even realize the reason Air America failed is they were competing for the same viewers as NPR?
That may all be true, but as I responded to one of the other posters, do you really think you can outperform six guys in Mumbai on a long-term basis? Really?
And even if you can, does your boss' boss' boss know that?
Sure, but do you really think you can outproduce six guys in India with the same education as yours?
This is really no different than what happened in the auto industry during the '80s and '90s. All the expansion was ouside the US, all the contraction was inside the US. After awhile you don't have many US employees.
Yeah but when the economy turns down, who are they gonna lay off, the guy in California making $50/hour or the guy in Mumbai making $9/hour? Sure, everyone's happy when things are humming along, but the cracks will show later.
DC-X was a very successful program. It had many successful flights until the Air Force turned it over to NASA and NASA crashed it on the first flight. Then they cancelled it.
I'm ashamed there are still people in this country who think the Iraq war was about oil despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well, the first Raiders came out before ET, which is where I think Spielberg got the idea blockbusters need kids to be successful (as if Raiders wasn't successful). And yeah, I count young Indy in Last Crusade - the flashbacks didn't really add to the story.
Well, that falls under my "designed to depress me" category. In any case, Schindler's List did have a cute kid. It's just that he gets shot.
Bah. The only thing Spielberg guarantees is some overly cute, sappy kid. I hate cute kids in my adventure movies.
It's like he saw how successful the cuteness was in E.T. and decided to put it in every movie. Well, every movie that wasn't designed to depress me.
I guess I would be more sympathetic to these folks if the CIA hadn't conducted a six year campaign of leaks to undermine the president. I worked for Uncle Sam. When you do anything connected with the military you sign away your right to discuss it. Ever. There's nothing here that has anything to do with the first amendment.
And if you think the administration is fascist you should probably crack a history book and actually try to understand the meaning of the words you're writing. If Bush was really a fascist you wouldn't be reading this, since you'd be in a shallow mass grave somewhere. Are you so disconnected from reality?
I think you'd have to use it along with whitelists. I'd happily put amazon.com and some of the other vendors I use on my whitelist, and I wouldn't even blame them for saying "If you want email from us you need to put us on your whitelist."
I'm at a loss to think of an example of a service that generates large volumes of legitimate unsolicited email.
As for the botnets? Well, that's still only 12 per minute, which is a heck of a lot better than what we have now.