Good catch.. no idea where the 21" came from.. memory glitch somewhere:) Nope, I didn't even have to double check Janes after seeing it. Now to figure how how 21 got stuck in there..
Not only is there a whole lot of requirements to make them obsolete, the most obvious reasons will still keep subs working.
Long ago Submarines were ship killers. That is what their job was, and they did it very well. Over time that role changed, primarily due to the advent of nuclear missiles being tucked inside. Submarines are the single best deterrent anyone has for nuclear war. New sensor technology won't change that, because a sub does not have to be close to another ship to launch, does not have to be close to a shore to launch. That is a role the sub will remain for, no matter how good the detection gets.
Attack subs won't go away either. They are still very effective ship killers. In order for a detection ship to catch a sub, it has to get close. A sub can kill a ship from a hefty distance. It gives away their position, but multiple torpedoes can take out multiple ships.
I read this article like I read the old "fighter jets don't need guns argument" which was also proven wrong.
Battle ships were a pretty special beast, they didn't go away due to effectiveness but cost. 21" guns are amazingly expensive to fire.
Nothing you list requires writing a line of code, it requires logic and diagrams. Logic and diagrams can help any profession, not just programmers. Considering what.. maybe 5% of the students will ever be a in a profession that writes code why not teach something everyone can benefit from?
Sure, the kids that may actually use coding later may get more involved if they see it early. At the same time, you are going to put the other kids to sleep. An intro like class I'm okay with, but you only need a week or so to teach that to kids.
I think you are trying to hint that the CDC is not accurate. I'm pretty sure they are kind of accurate, but to get the real picture you have to dig pretty damn hard into their information. They don't make it easy.
Have a better site for numbers that can't be flagged as biased? I'll take a look.
Figuratively I agree with you, but not literally. We could put computers and software into a house to handle voice recognition. Most of us here probably have enough processing power already. That does not mean we could use it for our "Smart House" currently, because the devices going in are closed and only talk to their factory configured remote services.
Perhaps you mean something other than what you are implying, but at your word I call BS. Kindle does not put "bad" quality images into books, sorry. They put in the best quality image possible. Sure, some books are going to have better images than others but that is because the "best" available is not good.. not a desire from Amazon/Kindle to be cheap or unconcerned with readers. Original publishers don't have to provide high quality images to Amazon and sometimes don't.
Your complaint about books is not restricted to a Kindle problem either. It is largely a Government problem. Amazon has to abide by what the local Governments require for their books and devices. The US is not the only country at fault, just the easy target. Many countries ban certain material and use DRM for their censorship. The US happens to use DRM more for profit than censorship. DRM can be used in either direction.
But I don't see anyone in power trying to correct things so there is no way this will end other than with bloodshed.
Of course not! There are no people in politics today that play for the other team. This has been a very long time coming, very well planned, and well played.
I heard a speech in the 80s where someone warned people about the harm allowing the monopolization of media would cause. I wish I could find who it was, but the quote that sticks in my head is "What happens when Rupert Murdoch's opinion no longer matches your own?". This speech was never played on US Television, and he was allowed to buy up more and more media. Today, your media is all monopolized and you hear the same set of talking points on every station. Their phrasing may be a bit different, but it's the same exact message. Tele-prompt reading is not Journalism, but people still cling to the false belief that "News casters" are not actors. That Brian Williams was a great "journalist" until he was caught right?
The fights in politics are just a ruse! It is fake Jerry Springer like bullshit so that people believe a false reality. Isn't it strange that every member of the House and Senate passed the Patriot act without reading it? Strange that the same bunch of people plead ignorance to AHCA? Nobody saw the problems with HB1033 giving advance Military gear to local Police?
In fact the only actions that have been taken in the last few decades has been the worse possible action for the US Public. Do you think it's all an accident and tens of thousands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and military people are just idiots? If you think that, I'll ask you to reconsider who the idiot really is.
Your time span is way off, well over half a century if you count Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope". Gary Allen makes similar predictions, George Carlin's comedy career in the 1970s made predictions, etc... I'm trying to think of what was release 25 years ago, how did you come up with 25 years? Was that just a plucked number, or when you first started noticing?
No to the first part is based on who owns the argument and what they want your perception to be. Hint: It may not be the real argument.
Remember that 5 companies that own all broadcast media in the US, Government agencies like the FDA are revolving doors for agriculture and pharmaceutical company exec's, many News Papers have been complicit in cover ups (see NY Post whistle blowers, Washington Post, etc..). Finally consider that even small papers rely on Government agencies like the FDA for information (you did read TFA right?).
Are most anti-vaxxers really anti-every vaccination, or just against the ones that treat the small threats and come with high risk? Here is an exercise for you. What is the highest modern (post 1970) morbidity rate for influenza? What is the morbidity rate of the vaccine? Now do that same comparison with the highest morbidity rate for Vericella (Chicken Pox).
I know plenty of people that have had, and fully support most vaccines but not the two I mentioned. Believe it or not their decision is not "crazy anti-vax" stuff like the media portrays, it's based on the numbers. Run the numbers yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. Everything is available through the CDC and US Census data. You may not agree with their opinions, and that's fine.. but you will at least understand their opinion is not "crazy".
That's not saying there are not some whackos who are completely against all vaccines, it's saying that is not the prevalent issue with people.
The second part, I fully agree with. The Government and people in public positions must be trusted. Many of us lost trust decades ago. Funny that things I talked about then resulted in "tin foil hat" comments, and "crazy", and "conspiracy theorist" yet today it's all been proven to be true. I'm honestly glad that more people are catching on, maybe the momentum will finally swing and we can fix things without a revolution. I'm doubtful, but always have hope.
To the third part, this has nothing to do with budget cuts. We pay more in taxes today than any other time in history. Middle class people are paying 30-40% of their income in taxes, and Government tax revenue is simply staggering. It's wasted in layers and layers of cronyism, nepotism, bribes, and hush money but the money is in the system.
To the last part, again you have been misinformed (see the opening about media). Anarchy is not the same thing as Libertarianism. Libertarianism is about reducing Federal institutions, not abandoning them. Read just about everything Ron Paul put(s) out, and that aligns with the majority Libertarian view. As with anti-vaccine people there are surely exceptions, but that is not the prevalent view from Libertarians.
Wait, you are trying to read Kindle books you hacked apart on an Android, and complaining about quality?
You can complain about the lack of language support and open standards issue, but you are not entitled to complain about the quality if you cobble something together as a hack. That is akin to complaining about the quality of the porn you downloaded from Warez.
Just so you know, if you can get an English Kindle in Japan (which should be perfectly legal) images are not poor quality, and neither is text. Zooming in and out is simple.
I should have warned you that any time someone mentions Gary Allen's books the sock puppets come out of the wood work to bash it, in hopes that you won't bother to read it. Do read it, and check every reference he gives in the book (which is an enormous amount) and you will see he is spot on with facts. He also discusses a lot of material covered in Carol Quigley's book in much fewer words, so it's a fast read. Once you are done, you can make up your own mind. Don't let the sock puppets discourage you.
New World Order. The origins go back much further than 25 years. The first public use of the phrase (in context) to my knowledge was Reagan talking about aliens, but every US President after him has been quoted mentioning this "New World Order". Privately, you could read a book by Carol Quigley called "Tragedy and Hope" (I highly recommend this one). If that one is too long, try Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" (free downloadable). Rockefeller's autobiography also talks about it, as does Henry Kissinger, and countless other political figures.
Commercial companies that continually receive money from the Governments sure can. In fact how do you think that commercial companies have stayed afloat after the NSA revelations last year? Government control of media, and government funding for data.
Are you confusing Einstein with Bernays? Hell, maybe you are right and he would manipulate for cash. Seeing his reaction to the use of the A-Bomb and reading most of h is papers and works, I'm a skeptic.
Maybe you were hinting at this, but just in case... Given our current technology, I refuse to use any voice recognition. Samsung is sending everything you say to a 3rd party, who can do anything they want with everything captured by the TV. Siri is no better, so I refuse to use Apple's voice recognition as well. At least with Siri currently, I'd have to push a button to use the service.
If we somehow had enough processing power and software _in_ the house I'd consider it.. but that system can't be directly connected to the internet to be used and I'd have to have full access to monitor communication in my house. I have a nice soldering gun to fix unwanted web cams and microphones I don't want and can't control. I believe the 2nd amendment protects my right to use my soldering gun in my house for protection!
No, annual is 1 year. There is absolutely no implication, it is the definition of annual.
No, Einstein would not have said something as silly as "20% growth annually is exponential growth" without qualifying a new time frame for the exponential growth to occur. Einstein was not a propaganda writer.
You are obviously paying attention and contemplating how to make the "exponential" fit into the statement. Without that contemplation, most people hearing "20% annual growth.blah blah. exponential growth" would visualize a graph with a slope of Y=X^2. Not a graph of Y= 1.2X. (I can't speak for you, maybe you are rarely/never fooled by advertising or propaganda). I happen to pay attention to this sort of thing, and admit that I'm occasionally fooled.
As I ask in my revisited post: If this is not done to be manipulative why is the adjective "exponential" only used when discussing profits, growth, etc.. and not done for costs, losses, or anything negative? If T is not important, would we use T=1 (annual) for 20% and no qualifier for "exponential"? As you well demonstrated, I can change T at any time so why did I start with a statement of T=1?
It is a simple manipulation, not really harmful. Or is it harmful? I guess that's a matter of personal perspective. People aware of the manipulation don't usually fall for the manipulation. More importantly, if people used correct terminology, there is no reason to point out the manipulation. We could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya...
No, you are looking at absolutely the wrong thing. It is adding an unqualified term into a string of qualified terms and then claiming that qualification does not matter. This one make that more clear?
Every year I go to a cabin next to a lake, and during my annual visit I fish for an annual fish. I catch my annual fish which seem to get bigger each year by 20%, and I eat my exponentially large fish.
Oh, I was talking about the fish I have today compared to the fish I had 5 years ago, so I'm not wrong.. I just failed to qualify.
Is my use of "exponential" above fine too, or is the misleading use of the word only okay when talking business? I am really curious. And I did write a better simpler view of my complaint here.
Fully agree. Where I last worked we lost tons of contracts and customers after the NSA revelations. Anyone in "Cloud" is currently having to build data centers over seas, specifically in the country requesting service. This is not cheap to coordinate or implement, so start ups and smaller companies without loads of capital are screwed currently.
Once again the "summit" lacks real technical expertise and view. CEOs are looking for how to gain from the summit as much as (or more) than trying to fix what is broken and why we have had tremendous dumping of US products and services. The simple truth is that the Government does not need unfettered back door access to every damn piece of data, but will pay our tax dollars to companies that give them access. (Another aspect that screws everyone but the big players).
I don't believe that you understand psychology and propaganda, which is my complaint. Perhaps you do see it but are simply attempting to ignore it.
I'll take at least partial blame, because I provided technical details showing the addition of qualifiers to add truth to the terminology, and not the simple view. I did not call out a key piece of information so that my complaint was clear. Like all people, I can forget the audiences vision does not match my own. So let me provide the very simple version of my post.
There is a bunch of terminology like "growth", "income", and "profits" that is qualified, in this case we have "20% annual growth". See that annual qualifier right?
Now we toss in the word "exponential" without qualification.
Without trying, your brain _will_ qualify exponential as annual as well. (hold that thought) Guys like Bernays were masters of this, and used it to effectively brainwash many generations of smokers, over purchasing, overeating, and war.
While surely this is not so nefarious, the same psychological trickery is present. Just like with Bernays' famous campaigns "if" you stop and think about the message you will have a correct view. "If" you don't, you have a distorted view of the world. That you have to stop and fix your brain is the issue. Unfortunately this happens all the time, and as inundated as we are with messages we often have an uncorrected view.
If you believe this is not to be manipulative, tell me why it's only things like growth and profit that get the "exponential" adjective? Over time, anything could show exponential changes but the word is only used on one specific way and for a specific effect.
I will return your ad hominem, because you are not grasping the complaint. The _unqualified_ use of "exponential" is the problem, and next the "annual" qualifier it is misleading at best. That you can't grasp or acknowledge the psychological trickery is your problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Good catch.. no idea where the 21" came from.. memory glitch somewhere :) Nope, I didn't even have to double check Janes after seeing it. Now to figure how how 21 got stuck in there..
Not only is there a whole lot of requirements to make them obsolete, the most obvious reasons will still keep subs working.
Long ago Submarines were ship killers. That is what their job was, and they did it very well. Over time that role changed, primarily due to the advent of nuclear missiles being tucked inside. Submarines are the single best deterrent anyone has for nuclear war. New sensor technology won't change that, because a sub does not have to be close to another ship to launch, does not have to be close to a shore to launch. That is a role the sub will remain for, no matter how good the detection gets.
Attack subs won't go away either. They are still very effective ship killers. In order for a detection ship to catch a sub, it has to get close. A sub can kill a ship from a hefty distance. It gives away their position, but multiple torpedoes can take out multiple ships.
I read this article like I read the old "fighter jets don't need guns argument" which was also proven wrong.
Battle ships were a pretty special beast, they didn't go away due to effectiveness but cost. 21" guns are amazingly expensive to fire.
Nothing you list requires writing a line of code, it requires logic and diagrams. Logic and diagrams can help any profession, not just programmers. Considering what.. maybe 5% of the students will ever be a in a profession that writes code why not teach something everyone can benefit from?
Sure, the kids that may actually use coding later may get more involved if they see it early. At the same time, you are going to put the other kids to sleep. An intro like class I'm okay with, but you only need a week or so to teach that to kids.
I think you are trying to hint that the CDC is not accurate. I'm pretty sure they are kind of accurate, but to get the real picture you have to dig pretty damn hard into their information. They don't make it easy.
Have a better site for numbers that can't be flagged as biased? I'll take a look.
Figuratively I agree with you, but not literally. We could put computers and software into a house to handle voice recognition. Most of us here probably have enough processing power already. That does not mean we could use it for our "Smart House" currently, because the devices going in are closed and only talk to their factory configured remote services.
Perhaps you mean something other than what you are implying, but at your word I call BS. Kindle does not put "bad" quality images into books, sorry. They put in the best quality image possible. Sure, some books are going to have better images than others but that is because the "best" available is not good.. not a desire from Amazon/Kindle to be cheap or unconcerned with readers. Original publishers don't have to provide high quality images to Amazon and sometimes don't.
Your complaint about books is not restricted to a Kindle problem either. It is largely a Government problem. Amazon has to abide by what the local Governments require for their books and devices. The US is not the only country at fault, just the easy target. Many countries ban certain material and use DRM for their censorship. The US happens to use DRM more for profit than censorship. DRM can be used in either direction.
But I don't see anyone in power trying to correct things so there is no way this will end other than with bloodshed.
Of course not! There are no people in politics today that play for the other team. This has been a very long time coming, very well planned, and well played.
I heard a speech in the 80s where someone warned people about the harm allowing the monopolization of media would cause. I wish I could find who it was, but the quote that sticks in my head is "What happens when Rupert Murdoch's opinion no longer matches your own?". This speech was never played on US Television, and he was allowed to buy up more and more media. Today, your media is all monopolized and you hear the same set of talking points on every station. Their phrasing may be a bit different, but it's the same exact message. Tele-prompt reading is not Journalism, but people still cling to the false belief that "News casters" are not actors. That Brian Williams was a great "journalist" until he was caught right?
The fights in politics are just a ruse! It is fake Jerry Springer like bullshit so that people believe a false reality. Isn't it strange that every member of the House and Senate passed the Patriot act without reading it? Strange that the same bunch of people plead ignorance to AHCA? Nobody saw the problems with HB1033 giving advance Military gear to local Police?
In fact the only actions that have been taken in the last few decades has been the worse possible action for the US Public. Do you think it's all an accident and tens of thousands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and military people are just idiots? If you think that, I'll ask you to reconsider who the idiot really is.
Your time span is way off, well over half a century if you count Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope". Gary Allen makes similar predictions, George Carlin's comedy career in the 1970s made predictions, etc... I'm trying to think of what was release 25 years ago, how did you come up with 25 years? Was that just a plucked number, or when you first started noticing?
No, Yes, No, and No again.
No to the first part is based on who owns the argument and what they want your perception to be. Hint: It may not be the real argument.
Remember that 5 companies that own all broadcast media in the US, Government agencies like the FDA are revolving doors for agriculture and pharmaceutical company exec's, many News Papers have been complicit in cover ups (see NY Post whistle blowers, Washington Post, etc..). Finally consider that even small papers rely on Government agencies like the FDA for information (you did read TFA right?).
Are most anti-vaxxers really anti-every vaccination, or just against the ones that treat the small threats and come with high risk? Here is an exercise for you. What is the highest modern (post 1970) morbidity rate for influenza? What is the morbidity rate of the vaccine? Now do that same comparison with the highest morbidity rate for Vericella (Chicken Pox).
I know plenty of people that have had, and fully support most vaccines but not the two I mentioned. Believe it or not their decision is not "crazy anti-vax" stuff like the media portrays, it's based on the numbers. Run the numbers yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. Everything is available through the CDC and US Census data. You may not agree with their opinions, and that's fine.. but you will at least understand their opinion is not "crazy".
That's not saying there are not some whackos who are completely against all vaccines, it's saying that is not the prevalent issue with people.
The second part, I fully agree with. The Government and people in public positions must be trusted. Many of us lost trust decades ago. Funny that things I talked about then resulted in "tin foil hat" comments, and "crazy", and "conspiracy theorist" yet today it's all been proven to be true. I'm honestly glad that more people are catching on, maybe the momentum will finally swing and we can fix things without a revolution. I'm doubtful, but always have hope.
To the third part, this has nothing to do with budget cuts. We pay more in taxes today than any other time in history. Middle class people are paying 30-40% of their income in taxes, and Government tax revenue is simply staggering. It's wasted in layers and layers of cronyism, nepotism, bribes, and hush money but the money is in the system.
To the last part, again you have been misinformed (see the opening about media). Anarchy is not the same thing as Libertarianism. Libertarianism is about reducing Federal institutions, not abandoning them. Read just about everything Ron Paul put(s) out, and that aligns with the majority Libertarian view. As with anti-vaccine people there are surely exceptions, but that is not the prevalent view from Libertarians.
Only true if you can afford the down payment. You can't buy a mayor for less than 10 big ones today.
Wait, you are trying to read Kindle books you hacked apart on an Android, and complaining about quality?
You can complain about the lack of language support and open standards issue, but you are not entitled to complain about the quality if you cobble something together as a hack. That is akin to complaining about the quality of the porn you downloaded from Warez.
Just so you know, if you can get an English Kindle in Japan (which should be perfectly legal) images are not poor quality, and neither is text. Zooming in and out is simple.
But the contents tasted really good. Awe F^*k I'm out of soap!
Apologies for the double post, no Karma please.
I should have warned you that any time someone mentions Gary Allen's books the sock puppets come out of the wood work to bash it, in hopes that you won't bother to read it. Do read it, and check every reference he gives in the book (which is an enormous amount) and you will see he is spot on with facts. He also discusses a lot of material covered in Carol Quigley's book in much fewer words, so it's a fast read. Once you are done, you can make up your own mind. Don't let the sock puppets discourage you.
New World Order. The origins go back much further than 25 years. The first public use of the phrase (in context) to my knowledge was Reagan talking about aliens, but every US President after him has been quoted mentioning this "New World Order". Privately, you could read a book by Carol Quigley called "Tragedy and Hope" (I highly recommend this one). If that one is too long, try Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" (free downloadable). Rockefeller's autobiography also talks about it, as does Henry Kissinger, and countless other political figures.
Commercial companies that continually receive money from the Governments sure can. In fact how do you think that commercial companies have stayed afloat after the NSA revelations last year? Government control of media, and government funding for data.
Are you confusing Einstein with Bernays? Hell, maybe you are right and he would manipulate for cash. Seeing his reaction to the use of the A-Bomb and reading most of h is papers and works, I'm a skeptic.
Maybe you were hinting at this, but just in case... Given our current technology, I refuse to use any voice recognition. Samsung is sending everything you say to a 3rd party, who can do anything they want with everything captured by the TV. Siri is no better, so I refuse to use Apple's voice recognition as well. At least with Siri currently, I'd have to push a button to use the service.
If we somehow had enough processing power and software _in_ the house I'd consider it.. but that system can't be directly connected to the internet to be used and I'd have to have full access to monitor communication in my house. I have a nice soldering gun to fix unwanted web cams and microphones I don't want and can't control. I believe the 2nd amendment protects my right to use my soldering gun in my house for protection!
"annual" implies 1 year
No, annual is 1 year. There is absolutely no implication, it is the definition of annual.
No, Einstein would not have said something as silly as "20% growth annually is exponential growth" without qualifying a new time frame for the exponential growth to occur. Einstein was not a propaganda writer.
You are obviously paying attention and contemplating how to make the "exponential" fit into the statement. Without that contemplation, most people hearing "20% annual growth .blah blah. exponential growth" would visualize a graph with a slope of Y=X^2. Not a graph of Y= 1.2X. (I can't speak for you, maybe you are rarely/never fooled by advertising or propaganda). I happen to pay attention to this sort of thing, and admit that I'm occasionally fooled.
As I ask in my revisited post: If this is not done to be manipulative why is the adjective "exponential" only used when discussing profits, growth, etc.. and not done for costs, losses, or anything negative? If T is not important, would we use T=1 (annual) for 20% and no qualifier for "exponential"? As you well demonstrated, I can change T at any time so why did I start with a statement of T=1?
It is a simple manipulation, not really harmful. Or is it harmful? I guess that's a matter of personal perspective. People aware of the manipulation don't usually fall for the manipulation. More importantly, if people used correct terminology, there is no reason to point out the manipulation. We could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya...
No, you are looking at absolutely the wrong thing. It is adding an unqualified term into a string of qualified terms and then claiming that qualification does not matter. This one make that more clear?
Every year I go to a cabin next to a lake, and during my annual visit I fish for an annual fish. I catch my annual fish which seem to get bigger each year by 20%, and I eat my exponentially large fish.
Oh, I was talking about the fish I have today compared to the fish I had 5 years ago, so I'm not wrong.. I just failed to qualify.
Is my use of "exponential" above fine too, or is the misleading use of the word only okay when talking business? I am really curious. And I did write a better simpler view of my complaint here.
This should make things more clear.
Fully agree. Where I last worked we lost tons of contracts and customers after the NSA revelations. Anyone in "Cloud" is currently having to build data centers over seas, specifically in the country requesting service. This is not cheap to coordinate or implement, so start ups and smaller companies without loads of capital are screwed currently.
Once again the "summit" lacks real technical expertise and view. CEOs are looking for how to gain from the summit as much as (or more) than trying to fix what is broken and why we have had tremendous dumping of US products and services. The simple truth is that the Government does not need unfettered back door access to every damn piece of data, but will pay our tax dollars to companies that give them access. (Another aspect that screws everyone but the big players).
I don't believe that you understand psychology and propaganda, which is my complaint. Perhaps you do see it but are simply attempting to ignore it.
I'll take at least partial blame, because I provided technical details showing the addition of qualifiers to add truth to the terminology, and not the simple view. I did not call out a key piece of information so that my complaint was clear. Like all people, I can forget the audiences vision does not match my own. So let me provide the very simple version of my post.
There is a bunch of terminology like "growth", "income", and "profits" that is qualified, in this case we have "20% annual growth". See that annual qualifier right?
Now we toss in the word "exponential" without qualification.
Without trying, your brain _will_ qualify exponential as annual as well. (hold that thought) Guys like Bernays were masters of this, and used it to effectively brainwash many generations of smokers, over purchasing, overeating, and war.
While surely this is not so nefarious, the same psychological trickery is present. Just like with Bernays' famous campaigns "if" you stop and think about the message you will have a correct view. "If" you don't, you have a distorted view of the world. That you have to stop and fix your brain is the issue. Unfortunately this happens all the time, and as inundated as we are with messages we often have an uncorrected view.
If you believe this is not to be manipulative, tell me why it's only things like growth and profit that get the "exponential" adjective? Over time, anything could show exponential changes but the word is only used on one specific way and for a specific effect.
I will return your ad hominem, because you are not grasping the complaint. The _unqualified_ use of "exponential" is the problem, and next the "annual" qualifier it is misleading at best. That you can't grasp or acknowledge the psychological trickery is your problem.