The phrase you're looking for is "originally intended to enter service in 2003", not "supposedly deployed secretly in 2003.
But fair enough, if the T60-S does exist it would be interesting to get the details of its construction. However, it seems like it's been cancelled -- there's much speculation on this page.
[Topol-M and Sunburn] are only good for a direct confronation with the U.S.
Huh? The Topol-M i can sort-of understand but the Sunburn will destroy any ship it hits, no matter where the target was built.
I haven't heard of the U.S developing any cavitating torpeodes
Tu-160 BLACKJACK (TUPOLEV) Development began 1975 First Flight 12/19/1981 Series production started 1984 Date deployed 1987
As for your other claims:
Topol-M: It's wobbling. Big deal. It's not as if the US has a functioning ABM defense.
Sunburn: It's nuclear, who cares if it slams into the deck or the side?
Shkval: We already know how they work.
Schmel: So what? An RPG with a fuel-air grenade, not exactly rocket science.
Budding webbdesigners, take warning from that page: Dark grey on a pale grey background is _not_ easy on the eyes, and should be avoided, no matter how 'artistical' you think it might be.
If my eyes hurt from looking at your webpage, you're doing something wrong...
you seem unwilling to accept that I'm not a dumbass
You're not giving me much evidence to the contrary. Anyone who states as a certainty that "for a[ny?] given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem" needs to rethink the basic tenets of scientific method.
Oh, and your helpful advice on critical thought didn't especially endear you to me either.
I guess there's no point to continuing the thread.
No, you are missing the point. The point -- and it's a sharp point indeed -- is that we have no idea. You're saying it takes longer than a day to clear the pond, I say it might take less than a day. None of us knows, since we don't know the size of the pond, the effectiveness of the cleaning method, the availability of alternative cleaning methods, or even if we really should clean it. We just don't know.
That is why your analogy was silly.
for a[ny?] given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem.
No, we do not know that. This is what I have been trying to tell several people in this thread and in other threads. The heart of the matter is, we do not even know that the issue at hand is a problem. There's just too little research done.
I'm all for doing more research on the climate, I've stated as much on several occasions in this thread alone. I am not, however, willing to accept that every hiccup on the charts mean that we're doomed.
You, according to your last paragraph, seem to be willing to do just that.
So, your silly little analogy presupposes that clearing the pond takes more than one day. This might not be the case.
Nobody knows one way or the other how the climatic changes we've seen the last few years are going to affect us, there's just too many variables to take into account. To state that there is an emergency and that we're all going to die is... well, premature.
There needs to be more research done before we can say if the pond takes more or less than a day to clear, or even if it needs clearing in the first place, ok?
You're right, of course. The change discussed in the article was on the order of millimeters. The.3 percent came from this link off the article, and talks about how earth is.3 percent fatter round the equator than a sphere.
A 24 mile increase in diameter would indeed be both frightening and alarming, were we not drowned at that point:)
As it is, I stand corrected as to the numbers, but still maintain that a few millimeters increase in diameter is not very frightening or alarming. Yet. As you say, we have no idea if there's been any more research on this since the article was posted in 2002.
Which means that the sea level is rising. You don't consider this interesting?
Marginally, as I said. I do, however, concede the fact that others find it more interesting than I do. For some, it might even be very interesting (the Dutch, for example).
Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something.
Well, thanks for telling me what I think;) The earth changes constantly, and has done so through the aeons. As I said: Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course.
Before some more research is done into the whys and hows of this phenomenon I personally think that we should stay off the Big Red Button.
Please note that I never said, and did not mean to imply, that no research should be done about this. I just found the article (not to mention the/. writeup) to be a bit on the alarmist side of reporting.
We've gone to war on less evidence.
Well, that in and of itself is not a very good precedent if you want to avoid going off half-cocked.
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?
Scientists -- or as the case may be, reporters -- out for a quick 15 minutes of fame is my take on this "rather frightening" story.
From the webpage: I don't believe that there's any market-demand for teasers or for "Digital Rights Management" technology: [...] so I'm giving this novel to you in three open and flexible formats"
If you want to, go ahead and buy a copy and I'll get my royalty. But there's no obligation on you to buy it if you've read -- you're not ripping me off -- [...] I'm not in competition with my publisher here.
Good to see that there are a few authors and publishers out there that knows that giving away free downloads do not hurt sales -- if the book is good it will most likely sell more. (see Baen Free Library).
As for Doctorow, I enjoyed Down and Out, so I'll surely give this a try.
Programing is a lot easier when you have 3 source files, 4 header files, the debugger, and the application all open at once.
Yeah, sure, but that is when you're _working_. I got the impression that the poster's desktop was cluttered with icons even when _not_ working.
I often have three to five xterms open on the same desktop for just the reasons you state, but when no programs are used, there's nothing on the desktop. (But then again, I use fluxbox -- and Gentoo as a previous poster deducted).
Also, I am not much of a mouse user, preferring keyboard shortcuts, so there's not much clicking on icons going on.
I currently use two monitors, both filled to the brim with icons and several drawers on each desktop.
How on earth do you get any work done with all that clutter?
Call me a minimalist, but I like my desktop clean when it's not filled with programs that I'm currently using. I would totally hate having things zoom around in 3D. Too distracting.
But then again, I know what's on my computer, and what programs I want to run, and when. YMMV.
I don't know about the 777, but the Tu124, DC8, DC9, 707, 737, 767, MD81 and A330 seem to be able to make unpowered landings. That's not on paper, either;)
I think you're missing the point with the carrying robot -- it is biped. Yes, take a look at that photo again, and count the legs. One, two.
"I believe this biped robot, which I prefer to call a two-legged walking chair rather than a wheelchair, will eventually enable people to go up and down the stairs," said Atsuo Takanishi, from Waseda University.
Sure, it can only carry 60 kg.
Sure, it can only lift it's legs a few millimetres at the moment.
But damn! It's biped and it's capable of carrying a (shifting weight) human in a chair on top!
Seeing as I'm totally in the dark when it comes to gemstones, I'll take your word as enlightenment.
However, what my comment about my ignorance referred to was the subject matter of the article, that is the orbital angular momentum of photons, which is still somewhat murky to me.
"Can you imagine? An animal of more than 10 meters was unknown to us even in the 21st century," said Tadasu Yamada of Tokyo's National Science Museum, the senior author of the study that appears in this week's issue of the journal Nature.
Unknown to us? Hardly. It was just that this species was so like fin whales it took DNA analysis of nine different specimen to separate this "unknown animal" from fin whales.
Sure it's nice that careful DNA analysis shows that this indeed is (or at least might be - the jury is still out) a separate species, but that really don't justify the sensationalism.
I have fond memories of playing AvP late at night, playing as a marine, and being scared silly. It really has a scary atmosphere, what with the bad lighting conditions, strange sounds, dark shadows and monsters lurking around the corner.
Slashdot Mirror
[The T-60S] supposedly deployed secretly in 2003.
The phrase you're looking for is "originally intended to enter service in 2003", not "supposedly deployed secretly in 2003. But fair enough, if the T60-S does exist it would be interesting to get the details of its construction. However, it seems like it's been cancelled -- there's much speculation on this page.
[Topol-M and Sunburn] are only good for a direct confronation with the U.S.
Huh? The Topol-M i can sort-of understand but the Sunburn will destroy any ship it hits, no matter where the target was built.
I haven't heard of the U.S developing any cavitating torpeodes
Maybe you should check out This link then.
for which there are no effective countermeasures yet.
There seems to be no effective super-cavitating weapons deployed yet either, so countermeasures might be a moot point.
Yeah, it's new alright... From the linked page:
As for your other claims:
Topol-M: It's wobbling. Big deal. It's not as if the US has a functioning ABM defense.
Sunburn: It's nuclear, who cares if it slams into the deck or the side?
Shkval: We already know how they work.
Schmel: So what? An RPG with a fuel-air grenade, not exactly rocket science.
Man, that sucker's BIG!
Budding webbdesigners, take warning from that page: Dark grey on a pale grey background is _not_ easy on the eyes, and should be avoided, no matter how 'artistical' you think it might be.
If my eyes hurt from looking at your webpage, you're doing something wrong...
you seem unwilling to accept that I'm not a dumbass
:)
You're not giving me much evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who states as a certainty that "for a[ny?] given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem" needs to rethink the basic tenets of scientific method.
Oh, and your helpful advice on critical thought didn't especially endear you to me either.
I guess there's no point to continuing the thread.
As you wish.
Have a nice day.
You too
Let's all gather rats and put them under high voltage power lines and that pesky hole in the ozone layer will soon be but a memory!
You're missing the point.
No, you are missing the point. The point -- and it's a sharp point indeed -- is that we have no idea. You're saying it takes longer than a day to clear the pond, I say it might take less than a day. None of us knows, since we don't know the size of the pond, the effectiveness of the cleaning method, the availability of alternative cleaning methods, or even if we really should clean it. We just don't know.
That is why your analogy was silly.
for a[ny?] given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem.
No, we do not know that. This is what I have been trying to tell several people in this thread and in other threads. The heart of the matter is, we do not even know that the issue at hand is a problem. There's just too little research done.
I'm all for doing more research on the climate, I've stated as much on several occasions in this thread alone. I am not, however, willing to accept that every hiccup on the charts mean that we're doomed.
You, according to your last paragraph, seem to be willing to do just that.
so what?
So, your silly little analogy presupposes that clearing the pond takes more than one day. This might not be the case.
Nobody knows one way or the other how the climatic changes we've seen the last few years are going to affect us, there's just too many variables to take into account. To state that there is an emergency and that we're all going to die is... well, premature.
There needs to be more research done before we can say if the pond takes more or less than a day to clear, or even if it needs clearing in the first place, ok?
when the pond is half covered, it's the 29th day, and you're out of time.
Not if it takes less than a day to clear the pond.
Vellmont wrote:
.3 percent came from this link off the article, and talks about how earth is .3 percent fatter round the equator than a sphere.
:)
[You're out to lunch]
You're right, of course. The change discussed in the article was on the order of millimeters. The
A 24 mile increase in diameter would indeed be both frightening and alarming, were we not drowned at that point
As it is, I stand corrected as to the numbers, but still maintain that a few millimeters increase in diameter is not very frightening or alarming. Yet. As you say, we have no idea if there's been any more research on this since the article was posted in 2002.
Thank you for the sanity-check.
Which means that the sea level is rising. You don't consider this interesting?
;) The earth changes constantly, and has done so through the aeons. As I said: Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course.
/. writeup) to be a bit on the alarmist side of reporting.
Marginally, as I said. I do, however, concede the fact that others find it more interesting than I do. For some, it might even be very interesting (the Dutch, for example).
Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something.
Well, thanks for telling me what I think
Before some more research is done into the whys and hows of this phenomenon I personally think that we should stay off the Big Red Button.
Please note that I never said, and did not mean to imply, that no research should be done about this. I just found the article (not to mention the
We've gone to war on less evidence.
Well, that in and of itself is not a very good precedent if you want to avoid going off half-cocked.
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?
Scientists -- or as the case may be, reporters -- out for a quick 15 minutes of fame is my take on this "rather frightening" story.
From the webpage:
I don't believe that there's any market-demand for teasers or for "Digital Rights Management" technology: [...] so I'm giving this novel to you in three open and flexible formats"
If you want to, go ahead and buy a copy and I'll get my royalty. But there's no obligation on you to buy it if you've read -- you're not ripping me off -- [...] I'm not in competition with my publisher here.
Good to see that there are a few authors and publishers out there that knows that giving away free downloads do not hurt sales -- if the book is good it will most likely sell more. (see Baen Free Library).
As for Doctorow, I enjoyed Down and Out, so I'll surely give this a try.
Bose-Einstein condensate
Programing is a lot easier when you have 3 source files, 4 header files, the debugger, and the application all open at once.
:)
Yeah, sure, but that is when you're _working_. I got the impression that the poster's desktop was cluttered with icons even when _not_ working.
I often have three to five xterms open on the same desktop for just the reasons you state, but when no programs are used, there's nothing on the desktop. (But then again, I use fluxbox -- and Gentoo as a previous poster deducted).
Also, I am not much of a mouse user, preferring keyboard shortcuts, so there's not much clicking on icons going on.
It all comes down to preferences, I guess
I currently use two monitors, both filled to the brim with icons and several drawers on each desktop.
How on earth do you get any work done with all that clutter?
Call me a minimalist, but I like my desktop clean when it's not filled with programs that I'm currently using. I would totally hate having things zoom around in 3D. Too distracting.
But then again, I know what's on my computer, and what programs I want to run, and when. YMMV.
Trusted Computing defeats/destroys the GPL
Oh, now I see why MS is so hot on Trusted Computing -- they've found a way to negate the GPL.
"any new [operating system] released into a marketplace dominated by one brand would only serve to drive more consumers to that brand."
:)
Does it hold true in this version as well? If so, it doesn't bode well for our little game of world domination, fast.
I don't know about the 777, but the Tu124, DC8, DC9, 707, 737, 767, MD81 and A330 seem to be able to make ;)
unpowered landings. That's not on paper, either
I think you're missing the point with the carrying robot -- it is biped.
Yes, take a look at that photo again, and count the legs. One, two.
"I believe this biped robot, which I prefer to call a two-legged walking chair rather than a wheelchair, will eventually enable people to go up and down the stairs," said Atsuo Takanishi, from Waseda University.
Sure, it can only carry 60 kg.
Sure, it can only lift it's legs a few millimetres at the moment.
But damn! It's biped and it's capable of carrying a (shifting weight) human in a chair on top!
That's impressive if anything is.
Seeing as I'm totally in the dark when it comes to gemstones, I'll take your word as enlightenment.
However, what my comment about my ignorance referred to was the subject matter of the article, that is the orbital angular momentum of photons, which is still somewhat murky to me.
But then again I might not be very bright...
Whoa... Might I suggest you take five and go outside and smell some flowers?
Seriously.
Measuring the orbital angular momentum of single photons is a "brilliant" achievement, says Keith Burnett of the University of Oxford.
:)
Not that I understand one bit of what they're talking about, though
"Can you imagine? An animal of more than 10 meters was unknown to us even in the 21st century," said Tadasu Yamada of Tokyo's National Science Museum, the senior author of the study that appears in this week's issue of the journal Nature.
Unknown to us? Hardly. It was just that this species was so like fin whales it took DNA analysis of nine different specimen to separate this "unknown animal" from fin whales.
Sure it's nice that careful DNA analysis shows that this indeed is (or at least might be - the jury is still out) a separate species, but that really don't justify the sensationalism.
I have fond memories of playing AvP late at night, playing as a marine, and being scared silly. It really has a scary atmosphere, what with the bad lighting conditions, strange sounds, dark shadows and monsters lurking around the corner.
A very enjoyable game.