There's no point to flying across the US in a Concorde if it can't go supersonic. You can't go supersonic over habitated areas, that means you can't go supersonic over the US, because it's almost universally populated, even if sparsely...
And, like you pointed out, it DID fly to the US, just to the East Coast, and across the Atlantic, where it wouldn't bother people.
There is no reason why the Concorde COULDN'T fly around the US, it just can't fly around the US supersonic.
I have no idea what the hell your point is. You say the US was afraid of the Concorde because it wasn't invented here, then point out that everywhere else restricted supersonic flight over populated areas and that it DID fly to the US too...
Thinking about it... maybe Google is planning an entrance into the ISP market?
I mean, Google might be getting cheap rates for www.google.com, but that probably wouldn't extend to customers, plus accessability wouldn't be that great...
I'm not quite sure what Google's angle on the market would be, except perhaps high-speed/low-cost, but that doesn't seem as elegant as Google's usual offerings...
There's a difference between "people living next to the airport" and "people living in the middle of nowhere that suddenly have to deal with sonic booms every hour".
Did you even have a clue what you're talking about?
The State of Massachusets decided they want to switch to a more open format. They did not pass a law, they are not enacting fines, they are not sending police to bash the skull of Microsoft Office users.
THEY ARE NOT FINING PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT ARRESTING PEOPLE. THERE'S NOT A LAW. THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE THEIR OWN PRACTICES.
No. The forms will NOT be ignored. They will be returned, if possible, with the notice that they are not the correct forms/format.
I'm sorry, the formatting on this sentance is in the improper format. Please purchase the proper editing software to respond any further.
How the hell is that a "fine"?
My point is that the Massachusets state government is only doing what anny sufficently large market entity can do. Law Firms do exactly what you just mentioned. Now, explain to me why the hell it's different?
Because WalMart cannot pass laws or fine you for not following them.
The State of Massachusets can not fine you anything for not using an Open Format, either. They can simply choose to ignore any files which arrive which are not in an open format.
Almost like Lawfirms and them still using WordPerfect...
Oh wait, that's still the market deciding. And sufficiently large entity, be it the state government of Massachusets, or be it WalMart, it's still a market decision.
Of course, your example makes the US one of the most notorious terrorist nations, we dropped atomic bombs on cities chock full of citizens. We weren't even outnumbered.
It could be argued that those atomic bombs were also dropped to send messages of Terror. They sure as hell did.
That said, the target of those bombing WAS military, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. A far better example of American Military Terrorism would be the Firebombing of Dresden. Especially since the death toll at Dresden was higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Would you set up explosives by the roadside, then, to blow up passing military vehicles? Attack military convoys? Fire mortars at military bases? Ambush patrols?
Answers to those are: in unpopulated areas yes, probably not as you'd be attacking the enemy's strength, not if the base was even remotely well patrolled, and see the response to "Attack military convoys" respectively.
Those acts get labelled as terrorist when they happen to american troops in Iraq, but they seem like legitimate resistance to me.
Really? I keep hearing the words "insurgents" and "resistance" being used to describe them, and done so accurately.
Don't think Zarqawi's group represents the resistance in Iraq. They are opportunistic interveners in Iraq, nothing more. Hell, they are trying very hard to get the Sunni's and Shia's to beat each other to a bloody pulp! Those guys are the terrorists.
Hence why you keep hearing the label 'terrorists' being used in respect to Iraq.
There are many "insurgencies" in Iraq, not just one, not just terrorists. But they all get treated the same way by both the military (understandable, of course, they are the ones doing most of the dying on the American side) but, more importantly, by the public.
Indeed. The people who support the war look at both as an enemy of the military presence of the United States, which they both are, and as people who are killing US troops and Civilians, which both are doing. Those who are against the war see both as fighting against the US presense in any way they can, and since in the mind of the beholder the war was unjust, they are just in fighting against it by any means possible. So is it any surprise that both are looked upon the same way?
Did you completely ignore my use of the word "target"?
Remember, ununiformed combatants aren't given provisions under the Geneva Convention explicitly because they are a sure fire way to raise civilian casualties. So when we're fighting a large number of soldiers, and civilians die as a result, are we targeting civilians? No, in fact the US has gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.
Does that absolve the US of blame? No, but it's a good distance from terrorism.
Where does that leave the US's policy of Total War during the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo?
That's be two cases of genuine, bonafide terrorism right there. Right next to the Japanese practice of using hot-air baloons to bomb the continental United States (Only 5 people died, but they did cause plenty of damage), the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the entire German Anti-Mainland-Britain campaign, et cetera. Does that mean the US is blameless? Hell no. But in a world where everybody is guilty, nobody can really be blamed...
What about the nuclear weapons used against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The targets of each of those were military. Ball Bearing Factories, if memory serves. This is contrary to your previous, much stronger example of the firebombing of Dresden.
Are the pilots and crew of Bock's Car and the Enola Gay terrorists?
If you carry out an ILLEGAL ORDER, yes. At the time, however, both of those orders were legit. The blame falls upon those who ordered the action since it wasn't contrary to any treaties, laws, or agreements of the time.
If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!
If I carbombed civilian targets because the Russian military targets were too well fortified... yeah. I'd be a terrorist. I like to think that, instead of killing my own countrymen, I'd use sniper tactics against military officers instead.
I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist.
The United Kingdom is a member of echelon with fill rights to the data gathered. Seeing as they're a member of the European Union, one'd think they'd be the ones being asked...
I'm sorry, but I fail to connect the grammatical error with the statement 'bloody yanks'. Mangling the language occurs on both sides of the pond, you know.
Re:Security ?
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Question. What happened when the f00f flaw was discovered for the Pentium?
Yep, that's right, you had to buy another processor.
The X86 instruction set isn't somehow immune to flaws.
Did you even bother reading my original post before responding to it? Because it appears you need a refresher course on Relativity.
Firstly, yes. Energy is mass. In fact, as I pointed out in my first post, the relation is that Energy = Mass * C^2, or that Mass = Energy / C^2. So when you are transmitting electriomagnetic radiation, you are losing a mass, because the two are one and the same. Again, as I pointed out in my first post, this is a pittance because C^2 is a Really Big Number, and the loss of mass from atmospheric leakage dwarfs it, but it's there.
Second, writing that 'writing "Period" cannot strengthen an arguement that runs counter to facts' cannot strengthen an arguement that runs counter to facts. Please, know what you're talking about before you talk.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear that in Korea, only old people preserve culture!
Like, oh, between New York and London? Which, oh wait, was a route the Concorde flew!
But New York to LA was a route which wasn't possible because of the restriction (Which was a result of the problem I pointed out).
What's your point?
Guess what?
There's no point to flying across the US in a Concorde if it can't go supersonic. You can't go supersonic over habitated areas, that means you can't go supersonic over the US, because it's almost universally populated, even if sparsely...
And, like you pointed out, it DID fly to the US, just to the East Coast, and across the Atlantic, where it wouldn't bother people.
There is no reason why the Concorde COULDN'T fly around the US, it just can't fly around the US supersonic.
I have no idea what the hell your point is. You say the US was afraid of the Concorde because it wasn't invented here, then point out that everywhere else restricted supersonic flight over populated areas and that it DID fly to the US too...
Thinking about it... maybe Google is planning an entrance into the ISP market?
I mean, Google might be getting cheap rates for www.google.com, but that probably wouldn't extend to customers, plus accessability wouldn't be that great...
I'm not quite sure what Google's angle on the market would be, except perhaps high-speed/low-cost, but that doesn't seem as elegant as Google's usual offerings...
There's a difference between "people living next to the airport" and "people living in the middle of nowhere that suddenly have to deal with sonic booms every hour".
Did you even have a clue what you're talking about?
The State of Massachusets decided they want to switch to a more open format. They did not pass a law, they are not enacting fines, they are not sending police to bash the skull of Microsoft Office users.
THEY ARE NOT FINING PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT ARRESTING PEOPLE. THERE'S NOT A LAW. THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE THEIR OWN PRACTICES.
How the hell is that a "fine"?
My point is that the Massachusets state government is only doing what anny sufficently large market entity can do. Law Firms do exactly what you just mentioned. Now, explain to me why the hell it's different?
Here's a nickle, buy a clue.
Almost like Lawfirms and them still using WordPerfect...
Oh wait, that's still the market deciding. And sufficiently large entity, be it the state government of Massachusets, or be it WalMart, it's still a market decision.
More like a "Henhouse guard importing wolves to get employment" scenario.
Not just one, but two.
Bachelor's Degree from Yale, MBA from Harvard.
Your local NSA agent, c/o your local FBI agent.
Gee, it's almost as if Microsoft were a business, and the market is forcing them to change their practices to stay profitable...
Imagine that.
That said, the target of those bombing WAS military, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. A far better example of American Military Terrorism would be the Firebombing of Dresden. Especially since the death toll at Dresden was higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Really? I keep hearing the words "insurgents" and "resistance" being used to describe them, and done so accurately.
Hence why you keep hearing the label 'terrorists' being used in respect to Iraq.
Indeed. The people who support the war look at both as an enemy of the military presence of the United States, which they both are, and as people who are killing US troops and Civilians, which both are doing. Those who are against the war see both as fighting against the US presense in any way they can, and since in the mind of the beholder the war was unjust, they are just in fighting against it by any means possible. So is it any surprise that both are looked upon the same way?
Did you completely ignore my use of the word "target"?
Remember, ununiformed combatants aren't given provisions under the Geneva Convention explicitly because they are a sure fire way to raise civilian casualties. So when we're fighting a large number of soldiers, and civilians die as a result, are we targeting civilians? No, in fact the US has gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.
Does that absolve the US of blame? No, but it's a good distance from terrorism.
If you carry out an ILLEGAL ORDER, yes. At the time, however, both of those orders were legit. The blame falls upon those who ordered the action since it wasn't contrary to any treaties, laws, or agreements of the time.
I don't give a damn how outnumbered you are, there are plenty of perfectly effective guerilla military fighting techniques which don't involve targeting of civilians. Once you target civilians, especially if it's for them being easy targets, you are a terrorist.
Why would they bother with Uncle Sam?
The United Kingdom is a member of echelon with fill rights to the data gathered. Seeing as they're a member of the European Union, one'd think they'd be the ones being asked...
Well, they have a C-Series of notebooks... that count?
Okay, why?
Those are integrated into the Operating System. They are not part of the kernel.
Question. What happened when the f00f flaw was discovered for the Pentium?
Yep, that's right, you had to buy another processor.
The X86 instruction set isn't somehow immune to flaws.
Firstly, yes. Energy is mass. In fact, as I pointed out in my first post, the relation is that Energy = Mass * C^2, or that Mass = Energy / C^2. So when you are transmitting electriomagnetic radiation, you are losing a mass, because the two are one and the same. Again, as I pointed out in my first post, this is a pittance because C^2 is a Really Big Number, and the loss of mass from atmospheric leakage dwarfs it, but it's there.
Second, writing that 'writing "Period" cannot strengthen an arguement that runs counter to facts' cannot strengthen an arguement that runs counter to facts. Please, know what you're talking about before you talk.