it also helped that China had just put on a big propaganda push showing that they could blow up a satellite as well, but they did it from a stationary launch vehicle on a target with extremely well known trajectory, unlike the US demonstration which was against a tumbling satellite without control and already interacting with the atmosphere which was constantly changing its trajectory
Have you got a citation for that? I didn't realise the US was demonstrating a capability that was far in excess of what the Chinese demonstrated. Though it doesn't really surprise me.
You're right. We should shut down all charities immediately. After all humanitarian charities didn't charge the recipients for all that food and medical aid they give to the poor and needy around the world. So obviously the food provided no nutrition and the medical aid didn't help treat any diseases. All because the recipients weren't charged money for them.
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy, how the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians. [to a student] You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
So the freeness in "something given" is not purely monetary. In fact in the society of Starship Troopers money does not buy you the right to vote, only serving in the military does. Seems very reasonable to me.
I thought information wanted to be free and intellectual^H^Himaginary property doesn't real because if you had some real property and I took it you no longer had the property. If you had some intellectual property and I made a slot machine themed upon it you have lost nothing. Also violation of intellectual property isn't theft. It's not piracy either unless you do it on ship and only have one leg and a parrot on your shoulder. lol.
Oh sorry, wrong story. I mean the Tolkien Foundation is totally right to use IP law to protect Tolkien's legacy by demanding massive fees for tawdry merchandise.
The lads are only coming round for a chat though, i.e. using their rights to free speech and free assembly. The lads are very protective on their human rights, and don't like them being curtailed.
Considering that the native population of Europe is almost all white, I'd say it's about as disgraceful to have all white speakers at a European conference as it is to have all East Asian speakers at a Chinese conference.
It's always interesting to ask people who mumble about diversity why this does not apply to China or Africa.
Reagan's SDI was flawed because it was aimed at countering the USSR. There's no way you can shoot down 100% of thousands of high tech ICBMs with counter measures.
On the other hand you can shoot down a few crude missiles from a rogue state. And you can shoot down the few straggler missiles that survive a first strike. Something which I'm sure is will occur to the Chinese next time they rattle sabres over Taiwan or the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands.
China doesn't have many ICBMs and they do not have countermeasures. In fact I think even with no first strike they would probably lose 99% of them to US ABM systems. Now the US has tens of thousands of missiles and warheads and China has no ABM system. US retaliation over attempted ICBM attack - even one it foiled 100% - would be fearsome.
So if you're in charge of China, a war with the US would be a very bad idea.
Not to mention that it's hard to smuggle something of the size into Gaza.
It's not that hard actually. You just invite a bunch of Useful Idiots and say that the ship carrying it is carrying humanitarian aid for orphans in Gaza or some such.
The media doesn't contextualise the pictures of dead children either. If someone had fired thousands of missiles and artillery rounds at the US from Mexico and the US counter attacked I'd say the Mexicans would have got off rather lightly if they only suffered as much collateral damage as Gaza has.
In fact of course if even one missile was launched from Mexico the US would probably level the area, occupy it and completely reformat Mexican society so that such a thing would never happen again. Which would be fair enough, but I bet you'd see a massive death toll in the process.
What Israel is doing - playing cat and mouse with the missile launchers in Gaza - is likely to result in much less collateral damage than a full on invasion and occupation.
People (read: upper management) buy insanely expensive software that sucks every day. A product like McAfee isn't popular because customers like it on the individual level, it's popular because it's sold via buzzwords at the enterprise level.
It's kind of unfair to lump in Clearcase with the other enterprise software that is marketed to management. Clearcase is expensive but it is very good. At one place I worked that you could solve 90% of bugs by opening up the history in the version tree tool and doing a binary search to find the breaking check in. Which was handy - it was VxWorks system based on embedded C and they'd hired a bunch of idiots to 'work' on it. So the net result was that it would frequently break in some very subtle ways.
Management would rather you suffered with svn or something.
My issue is I have some changes on a branch which I have merged back to trunk using TortoiseSVN "Reintegrate a branch" feature. Now when I look at the version tree I don't see any edge being rendered from the tip of the branch to the tip of the trunk, which I would expect to see. In Clearcase you would see merge arrows indicating the direction of the merge between branches of a file/folder.
For svn, a branch is just another directory, with the little difference that it knows some history: It knows where it was copied from. When you merge a branch into the trunk, Subversion will take all changes that where made to the branch since it was created (i.e. copied) and apply all those changes to the trunk. It will remember which changes have already been merged (so it's not totally true that Subversion doesn't store anything about the merges), hence knows not to apply them again.
So, merging in Subversion doesn't mean much more than applying some changes here that were made somewhere else. The idea of the branch graph therefore doesn't work well with Subversion (and the way of handling branches is probably the most often uttered criticism of Subversion).
Moving from Clearcase at one client to SVN at another was a pretty bleak experience to be honest.
If you're using phrases like 'time fluxuation' you're well on the way to making one of those websites with ground breaking post Einstein theories that are mysteriously ignored by The Cabal of conventional physicists.
It's for sonar. It's easy to imagine the implications of this sort of technology for submarines.
I read in the Cold War the US introduced spread spectrum sonar. Spread spectrum means you can operate below the noise floor - only receivers that know the code can even tell that a signal is there. So the day the US switched to spread spectrum the Russians suddenly stopped hearing any US sonar until they cracked the code.
These invisibility cloaks make no sense at all for visible light because the wavelengths are too short. For sonar however they make excellent sense. Also the demos all seen to cloak a circular object, i.e. they'd fit perfectly around a submarine's hull.
So the purpose is for US SSBN's to be even harder to detect than they currently are. Which is probably pretty damn hard.
Why is this important? Well if you have submarines that are invisible to sonar it means they can lurk fairly close to an enemies coast and deliver a decapitation attack which has little or no chance of being intercepted by missile defence.
The sort of countries the US is actually worried about fighting - the Russians and Chinese - both have brittle and overly centralised leadership structures and tend to be a couple of decades behind the US in technology. Which means they don't have missile defence systems and most likely do not have stealthy SSBNs either. Still it is important for the US to discover these sorts of abilities first in order to develop counter measures.
If the US has stuff like this it makes those countries less likely to challenge the US over Georgia, the Ukraine and Taiwan which is kind of handy for the people of those countries.
Slashdot Mirror
You've probably got enough CPU power to detect skin tone, which could be useful for some applications.
You get the impression that Chinese ICBMs would be vulnerable to this sort of interception. Excellent.
I have never seen anyone get shot in the sack
www.ogrish.com
So if I fire missiles with 10kg of explosives at your house it should be no problem, right?
it also helped that China had just put on a big propaganda push showing that they could blow up a satellite as well, but they did it from a stationary launch vehicle on a target with extremely well known trajectory, unlike the US demonstration which was against a tumbling satellite without control and already interacting with the atmosphere which was constantly changing its trajectory
Have you got a citation for that? I didn't realise the US was demonstrating a capability that was far in excess of what the Chinese demonstrated. Though it doesn't really surprise me.
You're right. We should shut down all charities immediately. After all humanitarian charities didn't charge the recipients for all that food and medical aid they give to the poor and needy around the world. So obviously the food provided no nutrition and the medical aid didn't help treat any diseases. All because the recipients weren't charged money for them.
He's quoting this
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Dialogue
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy, how the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians. [to a student] You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
So the freeness in "something given" is not purely monetary. In fact in the society of Starship Troopers money does not buy you the right to vote, only serving in the military does. Seems very reasonable to me.
I thought information wanted to be free and intellectual^H^Himaginary property doesn't real because if you had some real property and I took it you no longer had the property. If you had some intellectual property and I made a slot machine themed upon it you have lost nothing. Also violation of intellectual property isn't theft. It's not piracy either unless you do it on ship and only have one leg and a parrot on your shoulder. lol.
Oh sorry, wrong story. I mean the Tolkien Foundation is totally right to use IP law to protect Tolkien's legacy by demanding massive fees for tawdry merchandise.
The lads are only coming round for a chat though, i.e. using their rights to free speech and free assembly. The lads are very protective on their human rights, and don't like them being curtailed.
What about if I distribute the source code but tell them off the record that if they pass it on I will 'send the lads round to have a chat with them'.
Maybe he means loose as in 'set loose'.
You are aptly named.
Considering that the native population of Europe is almost all white, I'd say it's about as disgraceful to have all white speakers at a European conference as it is to have all East Asian speakers at a Chinese conference.
It's always interesting to ask people who mumble about diversity why this does not apply to China or Africa.
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.1.28.153048.268.html
If you want security you need a Unix with a Strong Leader like Theo De Raadt. He may be a bastard, but he makes the trains run on time.
If you look at my comment I've quoted the bits of comment I was replying to. So when it comes to thread derailing it wasn't me who drew first blood.
Reagan's SDI was flawed because it was aimed at countering the USSR. There's no way you can shoot down 100% of thousands of high tech ICBMs with counter measures.
On the other hand you can shoot down a few crude missiles from a rogue state. And you can shoot down the few straggler missiles that survive a first strike. Something which I'm sure is will occur to the Chinese next time they rattle sabres over Taiwan or the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands.
China doesn't have many ICBMs and they do not have countermeasures. In fact I think even with no first strike they would probably lose 99% of them to US ABM systems. Now the US has tens of thousands of missiles and warheads and China has no ABM system. US retaliation over attempted ICBM attack - even one it foiled 100% - would be fearsome.
So if you're in charge of China, a war with the US would be a very bad idea.
Not to mention that it's hard to smuggle something of the size into Gaza.
It's not that hard actually. You just invite a bunch of Useful Idiots and say that the ship carrying it is carrying humanitarian aid for orphans in Gaza or some such.
Think of the orphans!
The media doesn't contextualise the pictures of dead children either. If someone had fired thousands of missiles and artillery rounds at the US from Mexico and the US counter attacked I'd say the Mexicans would have got off rather lightly if they only suffered as much collateral damage as Gaza has.
In fact of course if even one missile was launched from Mexico the US would probably level the area, occupy it and completely reformat Mexican society so that such a thing would never happen again. Which would be fair enough, but I bet you'd see a massive death toll in the process.
What Israel is doing - playing cat and mouse with the missile launchers in Gaza - is likely to result in much less collateral damage than a full on invasion and occupation.
People (read: upper management) buy insanely expensive software that sucks every day. A product like McAfee isn't popular because customers like it on the individual level, it's popular because it's sold via buzzwords at the enterprise level.
It's kind of unfair to lump in Clearcase with the other enterprise software that is marketed to management. Clearcase is expensive but it is very good. At one place I worked that you could solve 90% of bugs by opening up the history in the version tree tool and doing a binary search to find the breaking check in. Which was handy - it was VxWorks system based on embedded C and they'd hired a bunch of idiots to 'work' on it. So the net result was that it would frequently break in some very subtle ways.
Management would rather you suffered with svn or something.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1104961/how-can-i-view-the-version-tree-for-a-file-in-svn-which-shows-the-merges-from-br
My issue is I have some changes on a branch which I have merged back to trunk using TortoiseSVN "Reintegrate a branch" feature. Now when I look at the version tree I don't see any edge being rendered from the tip of the branch to the tip of the trunk, which I would expect to see. In Clearcase you would see merge arrows indicating the direction of the merge between branches of a file/folder.
For svn, a branch is just another directory, with the little difference that it knows some history: It knows where it was copied from. When you merge a branch into the trunk, Subversion will take all changes that where made to the branch since it was created (i.e. copied) and apply all those changes to the trunk. It will remember which changes have already been merged (so it's not totally true that Subversion doesn't store anything about the merges), hence knows not to apply them again.
So, merging in Subversion doesn't mean much more than applying some changes here that were made somewhere else. The idea of the branch graph therefore doesn't work well with Subversion (and the way of handling branches is probably the most often uttered criticism of Subversion).
Moving from Clearcase at one client to SVN at another was a pretty bleak experience to be honest.
Those aren't people. They grow them in big pods in the swamp behind the Apple store.
the UI formerly called Metro.
They should rename it to YHWH to discourage people from talking shit about it. Or MuhammadWasAPaedo.
Bet Jacob Nielson wouldn't write negative articles about it then, the pussy.
Try harder.
Protecting freedom and democracy when they under attack?
Incidentally if you know anyone from Sweden, play them this song. It makes them very angry for some reason.
If you're using phrases like 'time fluxuation' you're well on the way to making one of those websites with ground breaking post Einstein theories that are mysteriously ignored by The Cabal of conventional physicists.
It's for sonar. It's easy to imagine the implications of this sort of technology for submarines.
I read in the Cold War the US introduced spread spectrum sonar. Spread spectrum means you can operate below the noise floor - only receivers that know the code can even tell that a signal is there. So the day the US switched to spread spectrum the Russians suddenly stopped hearing any US sonar until they cracked the code.
These invisibility cloaks make no sense at all for visible light because the wavelengths are too short. For sonar however they make excellent sense. Also the demos all seen to cloak a circular object, i.e. they'd fit perfectly around a submarine's hull.
So the purpose is for US SSBN's to be even harder to detect than they currently are. Which is probably pretty damn hard.
Why is this important? Well if you have submarines that are invisible to sonar it means they can lurk fairly close to an enemies coast and deliver a decapitation attack which has little or no chance of being intercepted by missile defence.
The sort of countries the US is actually worried about fighting - the Russians and Chinese - both have brittle and overly centralised leadership structures and tend to be a couple of decades behind the US in technology. Which means they don't have missile defence systems and most likely do not have stealthy SSBNs either. Still it is important for the US to discover these sorts of abilities first in order to develop counter measures.
If the US has stuff like this it makes those countries less likely to challenge the US over Georgia, the Ukraine and Taiwan which is kind of handy for the people of those countries.