Don't forget that Google reads all your mail if you use GMail.
This is the only thing which isn't entirely true. Scanning and mining is entirely different from "reading". No one and I mean no one is sitting and reading your gmail. Google, like ALL OTHER MAJOR FREE MAIL PROVIDERS (Yahoo, Hot Mail, etc), are mining your data. Google is far from alone.
Correction - while its popular to believe and in fact widely taught, the correct translation is actually 72 grapes - not virgins. Grapes have both cultural, local, and religious historical significance. So yes, they really are blowing themselves up for 72 grapes. Not hard to see why virgins make for stronger appeal in modern times.
Also, contrary to the western apple eaten by Adam and Eve, its actually documented to be a grape or grape like fruit. Regardless of which fruit you believe it to be (pomegranate are also popularized guesses), rest assured it is not an apple.
So for a simple tweak in software, cars would not only gain performance, save more gas
Actually, cars typically run on the rich side to aid in cooling, aiding in engine longevity, and provide additional ping/knock resistance. Higher cylinder and EGTs directly translate into higher cylinder wear rates, higher likelihood of premature value wear or damage, and higher oil coking, burn rates. Almost all cars can be tweaked to run leaner, provide more power (more completely combustion) and improved economy at the cost of higher internal temperatures (more wear) and potential damage from pings and knocks before the knock sensors can correct the situation; especially with low octane fuel and high summer temperatures.
Just because something seems counter intuitive doesn't mean there are not legitimate reasons to do it.
Sorry about "Idiot". I've been to Saudi, Egypt and Turkey many times- While I'm not rooting here for either religion, equating Islam to Christianity runs against years of having observed Islam in action.
The problem is Muslims have strayed much father from Islam's own teachings than Catholics have from Christianity. On paper, they both have LOTS in common. Primarily because Islam is entirely rooted in Judaism and Christianity; just as Christianity is squarely rooted in Judaism. All three even share many of the same gospels. Pragmatically, they have little, if anything in common.
There are some very serious problems with Islam right now. 1. Many don't strictly follow the Qur'an - which is why there is so much civil warring between Muslims. Muslims actually kill far more Muslims than any other group. In fact, Muslims murder more than any other established religion - at least at this point in history. 2. The Qur'an is contradictory, contrary to its own assurances which teach it is as it has always been and that it is specifically not contradictory - unlike the Christian and Jewish cannon. We know this for a fact because Qur'ans have been found which clearly show it to be in flux some 150-200 years after Mohammad's death. In fact, according to the Qur'an itself, taking its own teachings, it is itself the work of Satan (corruption by man). Irony of ironies. This means their own religion forces it to be completely on par with that of the Torah and the Bible. 3. According to the Qur'an you need no other instruction to understand it because it is the literal enlightened word of God (Allah) and yet the Hadith is considered mandatory reading for most Muslims; such that they can understand the teachings of the Qur'an. This is the single largest cause of warring in the Islamic world. See item one and two above. 3. Perhaps the single most embarrassing item for Muslims, is that few even understand their own religion nor have they even read a properly translated Qur'an. This includes their own clerics. It turns out the Qur'an as read by all Muslims is actually a completely invalid translation. This is why the fifth stanza never makes sense - contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an itself. For example, a proper translation very clearly says martyrs get grapes rather than virgins. Which historically and culturally makes absolute sense. And again, historically, livestock had more worth than women so to say your reward in the afterlife is less than valuable, based on current teachings, is an understatement of the century. Furthermore, with a valid translation, not only does the Qur'an hold entirely new meaning, suddenly everything makes sense (as in, is coherently readable). See item two to be completely dripping with irony or ironies.
Accordingly, it very, very easy to see why the pragmatic institution of Islam is nothing like its principal teachings.
I cant quote a source, but I remember an article some years ago which claimed that with all the advances in design computers, the only a 4% improvement over Concorde was possible.
I haven't seen what you're referring to but I have zero doubt it refers to its design - not aviation. In other words, that particular design could have only been modestly improved. That doesn't mean other designs, with newer turbines (with drastically improved efficiencies, which were not even possible back then) can't do better. We know for a fact the Concorde's design is not the height of aviation design.
That's simply not true. Back then almost all computations were done via slide rule. It was the exception rather than the rule to use computers. And even when computers were used, the available horse power was still extremely limited by todays standards. As a result, almost all real testing was done via wind tunnel with a very limited number of variations. Which means the likelihood of being near optimal, let alone optimal, is extremely unlikely.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been HUGE learned strides since then in all of the areas I mentioned.
Can we not lose sight of the fact the Concorde was basically 1950-sh technology. The first two prototypes were built in the mid 1960s. We know a LOT more about aerodynamics today then we did back then. Which if you think about it, makes the Concorde all the more impressive. Regardless, we now understand "super cruise" technology. We can drastically reduce friction and improve lift in newer designs. We have drastically improved material sciences. Not to mention jet engine technology has drastically improved. To believe for even a fraction of a second the economics of the Concorde would be at all applicable to a modern redesign is nieve at best.
Which ultimately all means, you are absolutely correct. Fast plane + improved aerodynamics (reduced drag + "super cruise") + improved materials + improved engine efficiency all add up to a huge improvements in operational economics.
The next time a southern state wants to secede from the union.... LET THEM!!!!!!!!
This is literally one of the most ignorant things I've read on slashdot in a good while. The fact it was moderated "insightful" makes it all the more frightful.
Unlike most southern states, Texas is an extremely wealthy state because of oil, gas, water ways, and ports (imports). Texas is also a "second California" when it comes to the technology sector. The fact is, Texas contributes its share of taxes and is a major contributor to the US economy. It is these very resources which causes so many problems for Texas politics. Realistically, the people are not than much different from the rest of the country - excluding California and New York. The problem stems from lobbyists having huge sway over Texas politicians. Its not so much the people but rather the special interests who have bought and paid for Texas politicians, which cause the majority of the screwiness in Texas politics.
Unlike most states, because there was once a Republic of Texas, Texas does maintain the right to legally secede. Having said that, Texas' talk of succession was nothing but lip service for political, albeit questionable gain. No one was serious about succession. There may have been a nut job here and there but by in large, most Texans laughed at the prospect.
And another odd ball fact, Texas actually has fewer gun rights than most states. This is particularly interesting because when most think of Texas they think of oil wells, tumble weeds, desert, the wild west, and especially guns and gunslingers. Simple fact is, current Texas laws on the books are both state and federally unconstitutional with regards to gun rights. In fact, Texans have been actively working to re-obtain their gun rights which the state and federal constitutions are supposed to protect. So much for either Constitution protecting anything...
And how do you know I'm not the target audience. Because I don't like it right? Anyone who doesn't like it isn't the target audience. That's why you come across as a dick.
LOL. Dumber than a bag of hammers. Once again you are projecting. You are the one coming off as a dick and projecting this on to others.
The reason its obvious why you are not the target audience is because you so clearly are completely clueless as to why someone would create such content. If you were the target audience, a judgment about its artistic content and therefore damnation of the project would have never occurred. The reason being? If someone were in the target audience, first and foremost, the content would be judged on its technical prowess rather than subjective artistic merit. Furthermore, the fact you still don't understand this most basic and incredibly obvious fact only highlights, bolds, and underscores that not only are you not the target audience but that you're a serious idiot - especially in light of the fact this has all been explained to you several times. The fact we are still having this discussion also brings to light the fact that you can't comprehend the most basic of discussions. And the fact that you can't comprehend is cause for you to project your idiocy onto others further establishes you're an idiot.
Since you wanted to see a dick - here I am. But understand, its only because you've taught us all how to be one by being such an epic dick/idiot. At this point its obvious you're either a completely idiot incapable of understanding anything or a troll. Either way, you're not worth the waste of time for further replies.
Didn't we already do that with that pretentious snore fest, elephants dream?
Could you scream to the world any louder just how completely clueless you are? LOL! Seriously! With your logic, there is never a need to ever produce more than one tech demo, regardless of how much technology has changed or improved. Not to mention, the fact that you've missed what is completely obvious, twice now, underscores how completely out of touch you are; especially after it was already explained to you.
That's fine, I couldn't give two craps about blender, which means they've failed.
LOL...LOL...LOL...
No, that means you're not their target audience. The fact you can't figure that out, especially after it was explicitly pointed out, means YOU HAVE FAILED; epically.
Getting the regular folks interested gets everyone else interested.
LOL...LOL...LOL...
They already have "regular folks" interested. In this case, they are called, "hobbyist". Frankly, they are going about things correctly, regardless of your back-assward way of thinking. They desire to get deeper industry penetration while learning how the tool can be yet further improved. In doing so they garner attention from professionals and those seeking to follow in the foot steps of professionals. That's their target. So far, they are spot on.
They and their fanboys want to take a standoffish screw you attitude,
You're confusing your attitude with theirs. Its called projection. Seriously, look at your post. In what way is improving a product and introducing it to those who would leverage it the most, a "standoffish screw you attitude"? You'll find no one will agree with your position on this, which underscores the "attitude" is entirely of your own making. It simply doesn't exist outside your world.
To summarize your position, anyone who devotes free time to a project, asks nothing in return, who in turn use their effort to further their project in the most sensible means available is expressing a "screw you attitude." This strongly suggests you've missed a pill - or should find some.
That's an indirect benefit. The focus is to use the tools, learn where they fall short, and most importantly, show others in industry such free tools are available which are capable for producing capable results. That of course, doesn't diminish the significance of your point.
Thanks for proving my original point. And interestingly enough, you misspelled, "You", in your diagram. It is spelled, "MrHanky". I'm sure the humor will also be lost on you; especially as to why its so obvious.
Yes, the same way that I can re-write Emacs to be vim. Then again, I could just use vim, or write my own editor from scratch.
Then again, you can just use Viper mode in emacs which already supports a huge chunk of vim features and bindings. Aside from that, you've missed the point. The fact is, you CAN re-write emacs to be vim. The fact YOU don't want to, but would rather just complain, well, says enough doesn't it...
Yes, it looks great, kind of. It looks visually impressive, but having seen the trailer I just don't want to see the whole thing.
To say you've entirely missed the point in an understatement.
It looks visually impressive
This is entirely the point - which you've completely validated. There is no other point.
The OS community wishes to show off what blender and other OS tools are capable of creating. As far as I know, there are no open source tools which create story lines, genres, or any other meta aspect of the movie. People do that. The purpose is to create a technology demo which shows off the technical capabilities of the tools. The fact you call the trailer, "visually impressive", means they've hit a home run. At the end of the day, unless YOU are making commercials, movies, special effects, or a hobbyist modeler, frankly you're not even the target audience.
To be absolutely clear, the intent of these movie projects isn't so the casual movie goer has something to watch while they chew down some pop corn. The intent is to demo Blender's (and other tools) capabilities to those who do create movies, commercials, and special effects, so that Blender will be used in places you already do chew on pop corn. In short, you just gave them a glowing A+ and didn't even realize.
You may not have a doubt that nuclear power is the way to go, but *I* do.
That's fine and I can respect that.
Mind you, I have no doubt that nuclear power could be made much better than oil. But nuclear plants are, inherently, centralized.
Actually, they are not. There are designs which could make a reactor scale down for underground installation on a per neighborhood and even per house basis. They would then be interconnected to allow for redundancy.
I think you'd truly be surprised about the huge variations is designs and safety improvements which are available - if even only in theory.
But I think that a combination of wind and solar is our best staple power source
Both of those have a lot to prove yet. I believe they have lots of potential. Just the same, thermal solar has yet to be proved a viable solution and the actual costs are still out. And photo solar is simply too expensive and too short lived. Which means wind is realistically the only short term up and coming alternative to nuclear.
Just the same, as Pickens found out in Texas, the grid isn't built to support decentralized power distribution and power companies don't want to spend the billions required to change that. Which, sadly, brings us full circle to nuclear. Right now, with just existing fuel, we have enough fuel to run nuclear reactors for the next thousand or two years. Remember, nuclear power plant technology goes well beyond the designs created during the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, that's largely all we have running world wide. A lot of our technology and nuclear understanding has drastically improved since then; as has material and manufacturing sciences
If it's based on GPL code and they don't want to release the whole thing under the GPL, they'll need to rewrite the sections under the GPL before they can have their way with it.
I do want to point out the key to your entire statement there. The key word is, "release." If they want to use the effort for internal consumption, they are free to do so and are not required to every make the code publicly available. But, assuming the code is GPL'd, if they are publicly releasing binaries, they are legally obligated to provide the source.
OK, let's ignore for a moment the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas responsible for up to 76% of the greenhouse effect
The particular types of clouds they are seeding do not contribute to greenhouse gas. In fact, they contribute to rain so they are typically short lived in the atmosphere. These particular clouds almost exclusive form over the ocean. So technically, they could help improve the various "salt belts" in the ocean. Also, the clouds which are seeded actually reflect a huge amount of energy back into space. By making them larger and denser, the amount of reflected radiation is drastically improved.
I can't speak for the energy source complaint. To me, that's the only down side.
And at the end of the day, this is what anti-nukers completely miss. We know for a fact there are many drastically safer nuclear designers currently available, right around the corner, and right beyond our current technological grasp. With each new design comes more power, ever increasing safety, and better bang for the buck. But since whack jobs have effectively shut down the nuclear industry, effectively making them uninsurable (without government backing), new sites unobtainable, replacement of worn out equipment all but impossible, no solutions for spent fuel, and ever growing level of bureaucracy, legendary, they have condemned us to fossil fuels. Period.
Frankly, nuclear is without a doubt the best route to go. Over time it will be come more cost effective and likely incredibly profitable. But with natural market evolution made completely impossible by anti-nuke whack jobs, our ONLY option is fossil fuels.
At this point, there isn't an anti-nuke whack job that doesn't deserve a seriously hard whack on the head because they are themselves the world's biggest problem. Literally.
This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas.
It can in most areas.
With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations
This is a concern I also share. Just the same, this aircraft is not forcing retirement SHs. As such, when numbers matter, they are still available. Also keep in mind, one of the reasons why squadrons are sent out is to provide protection and air superiority for their brethren. In the case of planes like the F22 and F35, this requirements for an extra squadron doesn't necessarily exist. This in turn also reduces the number of aircraft which would otherwise be required in theater. And if they are otherwise available, it frees them up to be tasked where numbers might still be required.
The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM
I encourage you to review tactics. Beyond, I doubt such missiles are anywhere near such a potent threat you believe it to be. You need to remember, many aircraft, left than a couple miles away, typically have much difficulty maintaining a radar lock on F35s and especially F22s. Beyond that, these aircraft also have various jamming capabilities should threats require it.
You also need to keep in mind the effective range of such weapon systems is actually much, much smaller verses nimble targets. Against a fighter, I doubt they are effective against targets over half their stated range against fighters. Furthermore, unless system systems are within twenty miles or so, I doubt they'd even have much hope of even identifying an F35, let alone an F22, as a threat, let a lone a target. This combined with the bag of tactics currently employed doesn't, IMOHO, a significant threat.
Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck
It doesn't sound like you understand what an F35 is. It is an air superiority fighter. First and foremost. Your argument is that by not allowing it to serve its primary role it has no value. We'll of course that's true. But that doesn't make your assessment accurate. You need to understand all pilots who have flown against the F35 and especially the F22 are scared shitless of them; and with good reason. Even our own F35/F22 pilots, when flying our other conventional aircraft, are lucky to actually see the aircraft before they are "dead." To say such aircraft will never be used as their primary role means the US is without conflict in the world.
Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason.
Basically, no one else in the world can even afford to create a "near-peer", let alone a "peer". And when such an aircraft is created in fifty years from now, our existing fleet will have served their purpose wonderfully.
You need to keep in mind, most of the world is only able to design, develop, test, and deploy aircraft in the league of the SH. And frankly, the SH doesn't hold a candle to the aircraft we're talking about. Long story short, we're easily decades away before the US need even worry about a real "near-peer" threat from any other power in the world; let alone a "peer" level threat.
I don't think you fully appreciate the technological leap in capabilities the F22 and F35 represent. Just the same, don't get me wrong, I too still have some reservations about actual fielded costs of the F35. If successful, its a win-win. If not, its still arguably a win - albeit just not at the budget we'd all hope for.
It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.
I agree. I the plane is anywhere over 100 million per plane, it doesn't make much sense. At that price, based on what I've seen and read, the F22 is more than twice the plane. So from that perspective, it doesn't sound like the tax payers are getting a good return on the money.
And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.
On the other hand, I can defend this position. Each F22 and F35 consistently tests on par with at least a ten to one ratio. That means an F35, at 120 million each, versus 45 million per SH, is still a far, far, far better buy. For the same money we can get 2.7 SH or one F35. Given that one F35 can easily take out ten SH's, that places us 315 million ahead when contrasting F35 vs SH purchases.
I am not aware of any treaties stopping the USA from nuking its own satellites.
There is a treaty, I forget which, to which the US is a signitor, which states no nukes in space. There seems to be some confusion about exactly what that means for some types of power sources but weaponization of space is strictly prohibited. I should say, "or so I've been told."
Nobody knew for sure that it was possible to weaponize anthrax until we had done it. Now we've shown that it's possible, and we've shown how to do it.
Wrong. The USSR had weaponized Anthrax long before the US did. And to be absolutely clear, creating a quantity of anthrax does not mean its been weaponized. There is a HUGE difference. The mailing of anthrax absolutely is NOT weaponization.
You need to keep in mind, the bulk of our bio-research ("germ warfare") was as a directly response to the USSR's massive program (largest in the world). They invested heavily because they realized early on they could never keep nuclear pace. So in response to the USSR's bio-weaponization programs, the US started developing our own - but on a much smaller scale.
Because he knows what he's talking about and not one person has stepped forward to contradict his statement. And from what I've read, long before he's stepped forward, there had always been some question as to whether or not that lab could have even produced the quantity of Anthrax released. Based on his statements, it appears the FBI knew full well the lab couldn't have ever created that much Anthrax without the entire lab being in on it.
One thing that everybody agrees on is that the anthrax used in the attacks came from the USMRIID.
Sorry, no body agrees with that. Its as I said. While it likely did not come directly from that lab, it likely did come indirectly from that lab. Thusly, they are closely related - exactly as I said. That's a BIG difference. If you play the six-degrees game, its like saying everyone is Kevin Bacon. Whereas in this case, the Anthrax is not Keven, it is someone very close to him. Again, that's a big difference. Of course, if we're the press and want to make it sound like an innocent man is guilty, we lie and say it came from that lab. After all, its close enough to the truth, the ignorant masses won't know the difference.
So we've demonstrated to the world that it's possible to create weaponized anthrax
Sorry, that's far from weaponization. Ineffectively spreading Anthrax is a huge difference from effective weaponization. Weaponization of Anthrax is actually very difficult. This case actually changed nothing.
Now any postgrad microbiologist can make weaponized anthrax.
No they can't. Effective weaponization is both very expensive and difficult. Mailing Anthrax is anything but weaponization.
But if the U.S. government hadn't done the research, it wouldn't be a problem.
This is, of course, wholesale incorrect. Such thinks could have been done, easily, if the government hadn't done it. Simple fact is, the USSR had some of the largest and highest number of bio labs in the world. Furthermore, samples from this specific lab were were (are?) readily available for anyone doing research. Samples are available for any number of other labs. In some cases, before this happened, it was discovered samples from labs all across the world have been sent to non-research orientated groups. To say obtaining Anthrax and other bio-samples is/was easy, all across the world, is an understatement.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that Google reads all your mail if you use GMail.
This is the only thing which isn't entirely true. Scanning and mining is entirely different from "reading". No one and I mean no one is sitting and reading your gmail. Google, like ALL OTHER MAJOR FREE MAIL PROVIDERS (Yahoo, Hot Mail, etc), are mining your data. Google is far from alone.
LOL. You made my morning.
And while I won't get 72 virgins
Correction - while its popular to believe and in fact widely taught, the correct translation is actually 72 grapes - not virgins. Grapes have both cultural, local, and religious historical significance. So yes, they really are blowing themselves up for 72 grapes. Not hard to see why virgins make for stronger appeal in modern times.
Also, contrary to the western apple eaten by Adam and Eve, its actually documented to be a grape or grape like fruit. Regardless of which fruit you believe it to be (pomegranate are also popularized guesses), rest assured it is not an apple.
So for a simple tweak in software, cars would not only gain performance, save more gas
Actually, cars typically run on the rich side to aid in cooling, aiding in engine longevity, and provide additional ping/knock resistance. Higher cylinder and EGTs directly translate into higher cylinder wear rates, higher likelihood of premature value wear or damage, and higher oil coking, burn rates. Almost all cars can be tweaked to run leaner, provide more power (more completely combustion) and improved economy at the cost of higher internal temperatures (more wear) and potential damage from pings and knocks before the knock sensors can correct the situation; especially with low octane fuel and high summer temperatures.
Just because something seems counter intuitive doesn't mean there are not legitimate reasons to do it.
Sorry about "Idiot". I've been to Saudi, Egypt and Turkey many times- While I'm not rooting here for either religion, equating Islam to Christianity runs against years of having observed Islam in action.
The problem is Muslims have strayed much father from Islam's own teachings than Catholics have from Christianity. On paper, they both have LOTS in common. Primarily because Islam is entirely rooted in Judaism and Christianity; just as Christianity is squarely rooted in Judaism. All three even share many of the same gospels. Pragmatically, they have little, if anything in common.
There are some very serious problems with Islam right now.
1. Many don't strictly follow the Qur'an - which is why there is so much civil warring between Muslims. Muslims actually kill far more Muslims than any other group. In fact, Muslims murder more than any other established religion - at least at this point in history.
2. The Qur'an is contradictory, contrary to its own assurances which teach it is as it has always been and that it is specifically not contradictory - unlike the Christian and Jewish cannon. We know this for a fact because Qur'ans have been found which clearly show it to be in flux some 150-200 years after Mohammad's death. In fact, according to the Qur'an itself, taking its own teachings, it is itself the work of Satan (corruption by man). Irony of ironies. This means their own religion forces it to be completely on par with that of the Torah and the Bible.
3. According to the Qur'an you need no other instruction to understand it because it is the literal enlightened word of God (Allah) and yet the Hadith is considered mandatory reading for most Muslims; such that they can understand the teachings of the Qur'an. This is the single largest cause of warring in the Islamic world. See item one and two above.
3. Perhaps the single most embarrassing item for Muslims, is that few even understand their own religion nor have they even read a properly translated Qur'an. This includes their own clerics. It turns out the Qur'an as read by all Muslims is actually a completely invalid translation. This is why the fifth stanza never makes sense - contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an itself. For example, a proper translation very clearly says martyrs get grapes rather than virgins. Which historically and culturally makes absolute sense. And again, historically, livestock had more worth than women so to say your reward in the afterlife is less than valuable, based on current teachings, is an understatement of the century. Furthermore, with a valid translation, not only does the Qur'an hold entirely new meaning, suddenly everything makes sense (as in, is coherently readable). See item two to be completely dripping with irony or ironies.
Accordingly, it very, very easy to see why the pragmatic institution of Islam is nothing like its principal teachings.
I cant quote a source, but I remember an article some years ago which claimed that with all the advances in design computers, the only a 4% improvement over Concorde was possible.
I haven't seen what you're referring to but I have zero doubt it refers to its design - not aviation. In other words, that particular design could have only been modestly improved. That doesn't mean other designs, with newer turbines (with drastically improved efficiencies, which were not even possible back then) can't do better. We know for a fact the Concorde's design is not the height of aviation design.
That's simply not true. Back then almost all computations were done via slide rule. It was the exception rather than the rule to use computers. And even when computers were used, the available horse power was still extremely limited by todays standards. As a result, almost all real testing was done via wind tunnel with a very limited number of variations. Which means the likelihood of being near optimal, let alone optimal, is extremely unlikely.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been HUGE learned strides since then in all of the areas I mentioned.
Can we not lose sight of the fact the Concorde was basically 1950-sh technology. The first two prototypes were built in the mid 1960s. We know a LOT more about aerodynamics today then we did back then. Which if you think about it, makes the Concorde all the more impressive. Regardless, we now understand "super cruise" technology. We can drastically reduce friction and improve lift in newer designs. We have drastically improved material sciences. Not to mention jet engine technology has drastically improved. To believe for even a fraction of a second the economics of the Concorde would be at all applicable to a modern redesign is nieve at best.
Which ultimately all means, you are absolutely correct. Fast plane + improved aerodynamics (reduced drag + "super cruise") + improved materials + improved engine efficiency all add up to a huge improvements in operational economics.
The next time a southern state wants to secede from the union.... LET THEM!!!!!!!!
This is literally one of the most ignorant things I've read on slashdot in a good while. The fact it was moderated "insightful" makes it all the more frightful.
Unlike most southern states, Texas is an extremely wealthy state because of oil, gas, water ways, and ports (imports). Texas is also a "second California" when it comes to the technology sector. The fact is, Texas contributes its share of taxes and is a major contributor to the US economy. It is these very resources which causes so many problems for Texas politics. Realistically, the people are not than much different from the rest of the country - excluding California and New York. The problem stems from lobbyists having huge sway over Texas politicians. Its not so much the people but rather the special interests who have bought and paid for Texas politicians, which cause the majority of the screwiness in Texas politics.
Unlike most states, because there was once a Republic of Texas, Texas does maintain the right to legally secede. Having said that, Texas' talk of succession was nothing but lip service for political, albeit questionable gain. No one was serious about succession. There may have been a nut job here and there but by in large, most Texans laughed at the prospect.
Another interesting note which many don't know, Texas is actually MUCH smaller than it once was.
And another odd ball fact, Texas actually has fewer gun rights than most states. This is particularly interesting because when most think of Texas they think of oil wells, tumble weeds, desert, the wild west, and especially guns and gunslingers. Simple fact is, current Texas laws on the books are both state and federally unconstitutional with regards to gun rights. In fact, Texans have been actively working to re-obtain their gun rights which the state and federal constitutions are supposed to protect. So much for either Constitution protecting anything...
And how do you know I'm not the target audience. Because I don't like it right? Anyone who doesn't like it isn't the target audience. That's why you come across as a dick.
LOL. Dumber than a bag of hammers. Once again you are projecting. You are the one coming off as a dick and projecting this on to others.
The reason its obvious why you are not the target audience is because you so clearly are completely clueless as to why someone would create such content. If you were the target audience, a judgment about its artistic content and therefore damnation of the project would have never occurred. The reason being? If someone were in the target audience, first and foremost, the content would be judged on its technical prowess rather than subjective artistic merit. Furthermore, the fact you still don't understand this most basic and incredibly obvious fact only highlights, bolds, and underscores that not only are you not the target audience but that you're a serious idiot - especially in light of the fact this has all been explained to you several times. The fact we are still having this discussion also brings to light the fact that you can't comprehend the most basic of discussions. And the fact that you can't comprehend is cause for you to project your idiocy onto others further establishes you're an idiot.
Since you wanted to see a dick - here I am. But understand, its only because you've taught us all how to be one by being such an epic dick/idiot. At this point its obvious you're either a completely idiot incapable of understanding anything or a troll. Either way, you're not worth the waste of time for further replies.
Didn't we already do that with that pretentious snore fest, elephants dream?
Could you scream to the world any louder just how completely clueless you are? LOL! Seriously! With your logic, there is never a need to ever produce more than one tech demo, regardless of how much technology has changed or improved. Not to mention, the fact that you've missed what is completely obvious, twice now, underscores how completely out of touch you are; especially after it was already explained to you.
That's fine, I couldn't give two craps about blender, which means they've failed.
LOL...LOL...LOL...
No, that means you're not their target audience. The fact you can't figure that out, especially after it was explicitly pointed out, means YOU HAVE FAILED; epically.
Getting the regular folks interested gets everyone else interested.
LOL...LOL...LOL...
They already have "regular folks" interested. In this case, they are called, "hobbyist". Frankly, they are going about things correctly, regardless of your back-assward way of thinking. They desire to get deeper industry penetration while learning how the tool can be yet further improved. In doing so they garner attention from professionals and those seeking to follow in the foot steps of professionals. That's their target. So far, they are spot on.
They and their fanboys want to take a standoffish screw you attitude,
You're confusing your attitude with theirs. Its called projection. Seriously, look at your post. In what way is improving a product and introducing it to those who would leverage it the most, a "standoffish screw you attitude"? You'll find no one will agree with your position on this, which underscores the "attitude" is entirely of your own making. It simply doesn't exist outside your world.
To summarize your position, anyone who devotes free time to a project, asks nothing in return, who in turn use their effort to further their project in the most sensible means available is expressing a "screw you attitude." This strongly suggests you've missed a pill - or should find some.
That's an indirect benefit. The focus is to use the tools, learn where they fall short, and most importantly, show others in industry such free tools are available which are capable for producing capable results. That of course, doesn't diminish the significance of your point.
LOL.
Thanks for proving my original point. And interestingly enough, you misspelled, "You", in your diagram. It is spelled, "MrHanky". I'm sure the humor will also be lost on you; especially as to why its so obvious.
Yes, the same way that I can re-write Emacs to be vim. Then again, I could just use vim, or write my own editor from scratch.
Then again, you can just use Viper mode in emacs which already supports a huge chunk of vim features and bindings. Aside from that, you've missed the point. The fact is, you CAN re-write emacs to be vim. The fact YOU don't want to, but would rather just complain, well, says enough doesn't it...
Yes, it looks great, kind of. It looks visually impressive, but having seen the trailer I just don't want to see the whole thing.
To say you've entirely missed the point in an understatement.
It looks visually impressive
This is entirely the point - which you've completely validated. There is no other point.
The OS community wishes to show off what blender and other OS tools are capable of creating. As far as I know, there are no open source tools which create story lines, genres, or any other meta aspect of the movie. People do that. The purpose is to create a technology demo which shows off the technical capabilities of the tools. The fact you call the trailer, "visually impressive", means they've hit a home run. At the end of the day, unless YOU are making commercials, movies, special effects, or a hobbyist modeler, frankly you're not even the target audience.
To be absolutely clear, the intent of these movie projects isn't so the casual movie goer has something to watch while they chew down some pop corn. The intent is to demo Blender's (and other tools) capabilities to those who do create movies, commercials, and special effects, so that Blender will be used in places you already do chew on pop corn. In short, you just gave them a glowing A+ and didn't even realize.
You may not have a doubt that nuclear power is the way to go, but *I* do.
That's fine and I can respect that.
Mind you, I have no doubt that nuclear power could be made much better than oil. But nuclear plants are, inherently, centralized.
Actually, they are not. There are designs which could make a reactor scale down for underground installation on a per neighborhood and even per house basis. They would then be interconnected to allow for redundancy.
I think you'd truly be surprised about the huge variations is designs and safety improvements which are available - if even only in theory.
But I think that a combination of wind and solar is our best staple power source
Both of those have a lot to prove yet. I believe they have lots of potential. Just the same, thermal solar has yet to be proved a viable solution and the actual costs are still out. And photo solar is simply too expensive and too short lived. Which means wind is realistically the only short term up and coming alternative to nuclear.
Just the same, as Pickens found out in Texas, the grid isn't built to support decentralized power distribution and power companies don't want to spend the billions required to change that. Which, sadly, brings us full circle to nuclear. Right now, with just existing fuel, we have enough fuel to run nuclear reactors for the next thousand or two years. Remember, nuclear power plant technology goes well beyond the designs created during the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, that's largely all we have running world wide. A lot of our technology and nuclear understanding has drastically improved since then; as has material and manufacturing sciences
If it's based on GPL code and they don't want to release the whole thing under the GPL, they'll need to rewrite the sections under the GPL before they can have their way with it.
I do want to point out the key to your entire statement there. The key word is, "release." If they want to use the effort for internal consumption, they are free to do so and are not required to every make the code publicly available. But, assuming the code is GPL'd, if they are publicly releasing binaries, they are legally obligated to provide the source.
OK, let's ignore for a moment the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas responsible for up to 76% of the greenhouse effect
The particular types of clouds they are seeding do not contribute to greenhouse gas. In fact, they contribute to rain so they are typically short lived in the atmosphere. These particular clouds almost exclusive form over the ocean. So technically, they could help improve the various "salt belts" in the ocean. Also, the clouds which are seeded actually reflect a huge amount of energy back into space. By making them larger and denser, the amount of reflected radiation is drastically improved.
I can't speak for the energy source complaint. To me, that's the only down side.
And at the end of the day, this is what anti-nukers completely miss. We know for a fact there are many drastically safer nuclear designers currently available, right around the corner, and right beyond our current technological grasp. With each new design comes more power, ever increasing safety, and better bang for the buck. But since whack jobs have effectively shut down the nuclear industry, effectively making them uninsurable (without government backing), new sites unobtainable, replacement of worn out equipment all but impossible, no solutions for spent fuel, and ever growing level of bureaucracy, legendary, they have condemned us to fossil fuels. Period.
Frankly, nuclear is without a doubt the best route to go. Over time it will be come more cost effective and likely incredibly profitable. But with natural market evolution made completely impossible by anti-nuke whack jobs, our ONLY option is fossil fuels.
At this point, there isn't an anti-nuke whack job that doesn't deserve a seriously hard whack on the head because they are themselves the world's biggest problem. Literally.
This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas.
It can in most areas.
With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations
This is a concern I also share. Just the same, this aircraft is not forcing retirement SHs. As such, when numbers matter, they are still available. Also keep in mind, one of the reasons why squadrons are sent out is to provide protection and air superiority for their brethren. In the case of planes like the F22 and F35, this requirements for an extra squadron doesn't necessarily exist. This in turn also reduces the number of aircraft which would otherwise be required in theater. And if they are otherwise available, it frees them up to be tasked where numbers might still be required.
The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM
I encourage you to review tactics. Beyond, I doubt such missiles are anywhere near such a potent threat you believe it to be. You need to remember, many aircraft, left than a couple miles away, typically have much difficulty maintaining a radar lock on F35s and especially F22s. Beyond that, these aircraft also have various jamming capabilities should threats require it.
You also need to keep in mind the effective range of such weapon systems is actually much, much smaller verses nimble targets. Against a fighter, I doubt they are effective against targets over half their stated range against fighters. Furthermore, unless system systems are within twenty miles or so, I doubt they'd even have much hope of even identifying an F35, let alone an F22, as a threat, let a lone a target. This combined with the bag of tactics currently employed doesn't, IMOHO, a significant threat.
Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck
It doesn't sound like you understand what an F35 is. It is an air superiority fighter. First and foremost. Your argument is that by not allowing it to serve its primary role it has no value. We'll of course that's true. But that doesn't make your assessment accurate. You need to understand all pilots who have flown against the F35 and especially the F22 are scared shitless of them; and with good reason. Even our own F35/F22 pilots, when flying our other conventional aircraft, are lucky to actually see the aircraft before they are "dead." To say such aircraft will never be used as their primary role means the US is without conflict in the world.
Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason.
Basically, no one else in the world can even afford to create a "near-peer", let alone a "peer". And when such an aircraft is created in fifty years from now, our existing fleet will have served their purpose wonderfully.
You need to keep in mind, most of the world is only able to design, develop, test, and deploy aircraft in the league of the SH. And frankly, the SH doesn't hold a candle to the aircraft we're talking about. Long story short, we're easily decades away before the US need even worry about a real "near-peer" threat from any other power in the world; let alone a "peer" level threat.
I don't think you fully appreciate the technological leap in capabilities the F22 and F35 represent. Just the same, don't get me wrong, I too still have some reservations about actual fielded costs of the F35. If successful, its a win-win. If not, its still arguably a win - albeit just not at the budget we'd all hope for.
It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.
I agree. I the plane is anywhere over 100 million per plane, it doesn't make much sense. At that price, based on what I've seen and read, the F22 is more than twice the plane. So from that perspective, it doesn't sound like the tax payers are getting a good return on the money.
And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.
On the other hand, I can defend this position. Each F22 and F35 consistently tests on par with at least a ten to one ratio. That means an F35, at 120 million each, versus 45 million per SH, is still a far, far, far better buy. For the same money we can get 2.7 SH or one F35. Given that one F35 can easily take out ten SH's, that places us 315 million ahead when contrasting F35 vs SH purchases.
I am not aware of any treaties stopping the USA from nuking its own satellites.
There is a treaty, I forget which, to which the US is a signitor, which states no nukes in space. There seems to be some confusion about exactly what that means for some types of power sources but weaponization of space is strictly prohibited. I should say, "or so I've been told."
Nobody knew for sure that it was possible to weaponize anthrax until we had done it. Now we've shown that it's possible, and we've shown how to do it.
Wrong. The USSR had weaponized Anthrax long before the US did. And to be absolutely clear, creating a quantity of anthrax does not mean its been weaponized. There is a HUGE difference. The mailing of anthrax absolutely is NOT weaponization.
You need to keep in mind, the bulk of our bio-research ("germ warfare") was as a directly response to the USSR's massive program (largest in the world). They invested heavily because they realized early on they could never keep nuclear pace. So in response to the USSR's bio-weaponization programs, the US started developing our own - but on a much smaller scale.
but how do you know he's right? Nobody knows.
Because he knows what he's talking about and not one person has stepped forward to contradict his statement. And from what I've read, long before he's stepped forward, there had always been some question as to whether or not that lab could have even produced the quantity of Anthrax released. Based on his statements, it appears the FBI knew full well the lab couldn't have ever created that much Anthrax without the entire lab being in on it.
One thing that everybody agrees on is that the anthrax used in the attacks came from the USMRIID.
Sorry, no body agrees with that. Its as I said. While it likely did not come directly from that lab, it likely did come indirectly from that lab. Thusly, they are closely related - exactly as I said. That's a BIG difference. If you play the six-degrees game, its like saying everyone is Kevin Bacon. Whereas in this case, the Anthrax is not Keven, it is someone very close to him. Again, that's a big difference. Of course, if we're the press and want to make it sound like an innocent man is guilty, we lie and say it came from that lab. After all, its close enough to the truth, the ignorant masses won't know the difference.
So we've demonstrated to the world that it's possible to create weaponized anthrax
Sorry, that's far from weaponization. Ineffectively spreading Anthrax is a huge difference from effective weaponization. Weaponization of Anthrax is actually very difficult. This case actually changed nothing.
Now any postgrad microbiologist can make weaponized anthrax.
No they can't. Effective weaponization is both very expensive and difficult. Mailing Anthrax is anything but weaponization.
But if the U.S. government hadn't done the research, it wouldn't be a problem.
This is, of course, wholesale incorrect. Such thinks could have been done, easily, if the government hadn't done it. Simple fact is, the USSR had some of the largest and highest number of bio labs in the world. Furthermore, samples from this specific lab were were (are?) readily available for anyone doing research. Samples are available for any number of other labs. In some cases, before this happened, it was discovered samples from labs all across the world have been sent to non-research orientated groups. To say obtaining Anthrax and other bio-samples is/was easy, all across the world, is an understatement.