I'm a little surprised that these ships are intended to be conventionally powered. I realize that nuclear power brings its own set of problems, but it also has a lot of advantages -- for example not having to worry about fuel consumption en route to the theater (or theatre in this case, I guess) of operations.
That's true. I'd read that the French weren't too happy about the "step backwards" in terms of propulsion, but the British felt that a nuclear-based design would've been too expensive. Hope this isn't a case of penny-wise, pound-foolish.
It works fine if it's properly designed and managed.
True, but that's the tricky part. The automated systems would need to be very redundant and resistant to battle damage. I'd hate to see the crew cut down purely for cost savings, and then find out later that the design was poor (see the sinking of the HMS Sheffield). Sometimes the extra crew, even if just used for ballast normally, could come in very handy if the warship took damage in combat just as an extra margin of safety.
You certainly don't need a battleship anymore. Sea-skimming missles, torpedos, and automatically operated defense guns have changed things over the years. This isn't 1945.
True, battleships at the end of WWII were pretty much obsolete against airpower. However, with the advent of SAMs, a properly designed battleship (utilizing heavy armor) with vertical launch SAM systems would be nearly invulnerable to anything short of a submarine attack or a nuke in coastal areas. Most modern warships are so thin skinned that heavy bombardment from shore artillery could do some heavy damage. A battleship would be tough enough to take some hits while pounding targets within a few hundred miles with a combo of cruise missles and heavy shells. They'd even be big enough to house a couple of anti-sub helicopters!
Battleships of this class would be horribly expensive, but it might not be a bad idea to have one of these instead of five of these fancy destroyers, simply for the survivability of the platform.
People are transitioning over to mp3/ogg/wma files because of those formats are more convenient to use. One sign that these formats are becoming really commonplace is that car makers such as Toyota are starting to make mp3 files a playable option on most, if not all of their models, not just the high end ones. This fact, combined with the convenience of more music (and customized to individual tastes), makes it pretty clear that the prices are too high for the current demand.
Pretty interesting points. The first point about diesel subs is known to be true, especially when they're just lurking using their electric motors. Making sure that subs would not be detected BECAUSE of this new equipment is obviously vital.
It's rather reassuring that Google doesn't just have logs lying around. It being so hard to collate them might mean they don't really intend to use them.
Unfortunately, it only takes a week to put something together. More of an inconvenience than anything else. And if they lose this case, you can count on some clever Google engineer figuring out a faster way of doing this. There's also this thing about technology making formerly difficult processes into mundane day-to-day activities.
All it takes is a little bit of creative effort, you know, like wiping your sock across the wet toilet seat first, then tapping it with your foot making it sound like you set it down...
Hmmm... Wouldn't putting the seat up in the first place have been easier? Or wiping with toilet paper? Walking around with a wet sock like that doesn't sound too sanitary or comfortable.:)
If they'd strafed it with 50-mm cannon fire, they'd have shredded a stripe across it, and it would have outgassed and plummeted.
The CF-18 fighters use the M61 20mm Gatling. However, you're right in that a lot of hits should've shredded it, given that the reputed firing rate is about 6000 rounds/min. The fighers were probably flying too fast to get more than a few shots in, or they were running low on fuel and could only make one or two passes.
Plenty? I hardly think there are plenty of examples of this in America. I doubt there are plenty of examples anywhere in Europe or Canada or Australia either. This is almost entirely a 3rd world problem.
A lot of children in broken families living in housing projects and the like in America might disagree. Living in those slums is almost like being in the Third World, I'd guess. Anecdotally, a lot of older children are taking care of the younger ones, especially when their parent(s) are incapacitated for some reason or other.
Most Iraqis today -- even those here in N. America -- prefer Sadam over the US for running of the country.
I suspect that a lot of the Shiite majority would disagree - this is their first real chance to get actual power in the country. And Saddam hadn't treated them very well. I'd agree that a lot of the Sunnis, particular those from Saddam's tribe, are finding their potential future rather unpalatable.
And all of your above comments are the fault of the user, not the OS.
I agree absolutely - that was the point that I'm trying to make. The software can make it easier for the user to back up data, but if the wetware doesn't choose to do it, no amount of handholding (other than forced auto backups) would do the trick.
The downside is that the database people need to become familiar with TWO different databases (or more depending upon the other apps).
Very true. For a company with a large DBA group, it might make a lot of sense to have a couple of their DBAs specialize in an open source database, so that they can have the best of both worlds, as you've mentioned. However, a smaller shop would probably only have the staff to support one database. What they choose depends on how much they value the support they'd get from the Oracles of the world versus the cost of the licenses. Likely, only if the costs are too great would they pick an OSS database, unless the business side was somewhat tech savvy or the IT guys managed to convince them to go with OSS.
Chances are, if you're smart enough to run Linux, then you're probably smart enough to backup your important files.
Smart enough back up the files? Probably. However, how many people regularly archive and backup their work unless they've lost data before? That's the tricky part, most people are lazy and don't bother unless there's an automatic solution OR they've been burned before.
AMD is slightly behind, only because they didn't jump to 65nm as fast as Intel. When they do (shortly) by all accounts they should jump right past Intel.
That pretty much sums up one of the main two advantages Intel has over AMD - superior process and manufacturing capabilities. Unfortunately for AMD, even as they transition to use 65 nm processes, Intel is about a generation ahead of them, with the first batch 45nm chips due next year. AMD's superior design helps on the desktop front, but they really need to improve their Turion64s to the point where they can take out the Core Duos. Intel's wiping them in the notebook arena at the moment.
Of the "standard responses" you mentioned, only the army (or the military in general) is paid for by national taxes. Police, roads, fire protection, schools--almost everything else, in fact--is the state or county's responsibility. In any event, I'm certain that Google could probably have provided all of the services it desired for its own protection for far less than a quarter of its annual income, and probably does so anyway (most major companies seem to employ their own security forces, for example), which means that Google is forced to pay for services it will probably never need to use.
But in many states and localities, the things you mention (police, roads, fire protection and schools) do have federal funding tied to various national programs. Think of all the highway bills passed by Congress, funded by gasoline taxes, for example. And there are all sorts of educational bills that are passed, with federal mandates (and funding). And the police compete for anti-terrorism funding, to buy stuff like better radios and such.
It is a red flag. It shows that Google stock is way overvalued. But we knew that already.
Wouldn't it be more of a red flag if they had sold MORE of the holdings? They only sold a fraction of what they had, according to the article. Why shouldn't they be able to diversify and sell a small part of the Google stock holdings?
I believe that Capital Gains Tax is higher than Income Tax (at least from personal experience). I'd be willing to believe "Good Faith" based on that
At the lower end of the income scale, the capital gains tax rate is higher. However at the end of the pay scale that the Google founders are at, the tax rate for the income tax is MUCH higher. See the IRS tax rate schedule (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133517 ,00.html).
Except they sold the friggin stocks so they're billionaires, and what happens to Google now really won't affect them one way or another, except perhaps that the rest of their stock might not be worth $1B when they get around to selling it. It's generally Not a Good Thing when executives sell off lots of stock. See: Enron, Worldnet AT&T, et al.
True, except that most financial planners tell people to diversify their holdings. Now, if your whole fortune was tied to a single company's stock, wouldn't that be a bit risky? They've only sold a small chunk of their total holdings, so it's not an entirely bad thing from a shareholder standpoint.
After all, you wouldn't want most of your 401(k) to consist of your company's stock, why should the Google founders do the same?
The scale on that is so low that it's just not felt by the average person, and they're getting a benefit out of it. Why should they really care in an individual sense?
True, most people wouldn't care, since it doesn't affect them much financially on an individual basis. Collectively though, that $1 or $2 per month for one household could turn into several millions when looking at a large metropolitan area or state. That's quite a bit of waste when looking at a larger group.
I have always thought that Intel has a high yield, quality process. However, their prices have always been higher than AMD, Cyrix, and any of the other competitors over the years. If their yield was good, then there was no reason for them to be higher priced. I always felt that they were gouging the customers, so I quit designing them into my systems. Since they are still higher priced than AMD for competing parts, I wonder if their yield has always been not so good.
Their yields have been good, but I suspect that Intel is just following basic marketing and sales. Why sell for cheaper if you don't need to? If the customer is willing to buy an inferior product at a similar or higher price, Intel can get away with this for a short period of time, much as IBM did with its PC division in the late 80's. However, sooner or later customers will realize this and buy more competitive products.
Fortunately for Intel, they have a lot of money and can spend to overcome these issues by having greater production capacity and lots of marketing.
So, where are the hordes of IE fanboys trying to kill off Firefox?
Unfortunately, most corporate environments do not allow users to install their favorite browsers OR tools. These users are forced to use whatever software the IT/security groups have blessed. Most of these machines are probably created from images anyhow, so I'd guess that 95+% of corporate machines are still using IE.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a little surprised that these ships are intended to be conventionally powered. I realize that nuclear power brings its own set of problems, but it also has a lot of advantages -- for example not having to worry about fuel consumption en route to the theater (or theatre in this case, I guess) of operations.
That's true. I'd read that the French weren't too happy about the "step backwards" in terms of propulsion, but the British felt that a nuclear-based design would've been too expensive. Hope this isn't a case of penny-wise, pound-foolish.It works fine if it's properly designed and managed.
True, but that's the tricky part. The automated systems would need to be very redundant and resistant to battle damage. I'd hate to see the crew cut down purely for cost savings, and then find out later that the design was poor (see the sinking of the HMS Sheffield). Sometimes the extra crew, even if just used for ballast normally, could come in very handy if the warship took damage in combat just as an extra margin of safety.You certainly don't need a battleship anymore. Sea-skimming missles, torpedos, and automatically operated defense guns have changed things over the years. This isn't 1945.
True, battleships at the end of WWII were pretty much obsolete against airpower. However, with the advent of SAMs, a properly designed battleship (utilizing heavy armor) with vertical launch SAM systems would be nearly invulnerable to anything short of a submarine attack or a nuke in coastal areas. Most modern warships are so thin skinned that heavy bombardment from shore artillery could do some heavy damage. A battleship would be tough enough to take some hits while pounding targets within a few hundred miles with a combo of cruise missles and heavy shells. They'd even be big enough to house a couple of anti-sub helicopters!
Battleships of this class would be horribly expensive, but it might not be a bad idea to have one of these instead of five of these fancy destroyers, simply for the survivability of the platform.
You mean like what Reagan said, trust but verify?
People are transitioning over to mp3/ogg/wma files because of those formats are more convenient to use. One sign that these formats are becoming really commonplace is that car makers such as Toyota are starting to make mp3 files a playable option on most, if not all of their models, not just the high end ones. This fact, combined with the convenience of more music (and customized to individual tastes), makes it pretty clear that the prices are too high for the current demand.
Pretty interesting points. The first point about diesel subs is known to be true, especially when they're just lurking using their electric motors. Making sure that subs would not be detected BECAUSE of this new equipment is obviously vital.
It's rather reassuring that Google doesn't just have logs lying around. It being so hard to collate them might mean they don't really intend to use them.
Unfortunately, it only takes a week to put something together. More of an inconvenience than anything else. And if they lose this case, you can count on some clever Google engineer figuring out a faster way of doing this. There's also this thing about technology making formerly difficult processes into mundane day-to-day activities.All it takes is a little bit of creative effort, you know, like wiping your sock across the wet toilet seat first, then tapping it with your foot making it sound like you set it down...
Hmmm... Wouldn't putting the seat up in the first place have been easier? Or wiping with toilet paper? Walking around with a wet sock like that doesn't sound too sanitary or comfortable.If they'd strafed it with 50-mm cannon fire, they'd have shredded a stripe across it, and it would have outgassed and plummeted.
The CF-18 fighters use the M61 20mm Gatling. However, you're right in that a lot of hits should've shredded it, given that the reputed firing rate is about 6000 rounds/min. The fighers were probably flying too fast to get more than a few shots in, or they were running low on fuel and could only make one or two passes.Plenty? I hardly think there are plenty of examples of this in America. I doubt there are plenty of examples anywhere in Europe or Canada or Australia either. This is almost entirely a 3rd world problem.
A lot of children in broken families living in housing projects and the like in America might disagree. Living in those slums is almost like being in the Third World, I'd guess. Anecdotally, a lot of older children are taking care of the younger ones, especially when their parent(s) are incapacitated for some reason or other.Most Iraqis today -- even those here in N. America -- prefer Sadam over the US for running of the country.
I suspect that a lot of the Shiite majority would disagree - this is their first real chance to get actual power in the country. And Saddam hadn't treated them very well. I'd agree that a lot of the Sunnis, particular those from Saddam's tribe, are finding their potential future rather unpalatable.And all of your above comments are the fault of the user, not the OS.
I agree absolutely - that was the point that I'm trying to make. The software can make it easier for the user to back up data, but if the wetware doesn't choose to do it, no amount of handholding (other than forced auto backups) would do the trick.The downside is that the database people need to become familiar with TWO different databases (or more depending upon the other apps).
Very true. For a company with a large DBA group, it might make a lot of sense to have a couple of their DBAs specialize in an open source database, so that they can have the best of both worlds, as you've mentioned. However, a smaller shop would probably only have the staff to support one database. What they choose depends on how much they value the support they'd get from the Oracles of the world versus the cost of the licenses. Likely, only if the costs are too great would they pick an OSS database, unless the business side was somewhat tech savvy or the IT guys managed to convince them to go with OSS.Chances are, if you're smart enough to run Linux, then you're probably smart enough to backup your important files.
Smart enough back up the files? Probably. However, how many people regularly archive and backup their work unless they've lost data before? That's the tricky part, most people are lazy and don't bother unless there's an automatic solution OR they've been burned before.AMD is slightly behind, only because they didn't jump to 65nm as fast as Intel. When they do (shortly) by all accounts they should jump right past Intel.
That pretty much sums up one of the main two advantages Intel has over AMD - superior process and manufacturing capabilities. Unfortunately for AMD, even as they transition to use 65 nm processes, Intel is about a generation ahead of them, with the first batch 45nm chips due next year. AMD's superior design helps on the desktop front, but they really need to improve their Turion64s to the point where they can take out the Core Duos. Intel's wiping them in the notebook arena at the moment.Of the "standard responses" you mentioned, only the army (or the military in general) is paid for by national taxes. Police, roads, fire protection, schools--almost everything else, in fact--is the state or county's responsibility. In any event, I'm certain that Google could probably have provided all of the services it desired for its own protection for far less than a quarter of its annual income, and probably does so anyway (most major companies seem to employ their own security forces, for example), which means that Google is forced to pay for services it will probably never need to use.
But in many states and localities, the things you mention (police, roads, fire protection and schools) do have federal funding tied to various national programs. Think of all the highway bills passed by Congress, funded by gasoline taxes, for example. And there are all sorts of educational bills that are passed, with federal mandates (and funding). And the police compete for anti-terrorism funding, to buy stuff like better radios and such.Yup, 24 checks for $0.04 each, minus tax and social security withholdings, each mailed to their homes with $0.39 cents worth of postage.
Not if they use direct deposit or have the statements delivered at the office.It is a red flag. It shows that Google stock is way overvalued. But we knew that already.
Wouldn't it be more of a red flag if they had sold MORE of the holdings? They only sold a fraction of what they had, according to the article. Why shouldn't they be able to diversify and sell a small part of the Google stock holdings?I believe that Capital Gains Tax is higher than Income Tax (at least from personal experience). I'd be willing to believe "Good Faith" based on that
At the lower end of the income scale, the capital gains tax rate is higher. However at the end of the pay scale that the Google founders are at, the tax rate for the income tax is MUCH higher. See the IRS tax rate schedule (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=13351Except they sold the friggin stocks so they're billionaires, and what happens to Google now really won't affect them one way or another, except perhaps that the rest of their stock might not be worth $1B when they get around to selling it. It's generally Not a Good Thing when executives sell off lots of stock. See: Enron, Worldnet AT&T, et al.
True, except that most financial planners tell people to diversify their holdings. Now, if your whole fortune was tied to a single company's stock, wouldn't that be a bit risky? They've only sold a small chunk of their total holdings, so it's not an entirely bad thing from a shareholder standpoint.After all, you wouldn't want most of your 401(k) to consist of your company's stock, why should the Google founders do the same?
The scale on that is so low that it's just not felt by the average person, and they're getting a benefit out of it. Why should they really care in an individual sense?
True, most people wouldn't care, since it doesn't affect them much financially on an individual basis. Collectively though, that $1 or $2 per month for one household could turn into several millions when looking at a large metropolitan area or state. That's quite a bit of waste when looking at a larger group.I like space junk - it keeps the aliens away.
But any alien spaceship with proper shielding wouldn't be affected by this junk.I have always thought that Intel has a high yield, quality process. However, their prices have always been higher than AMD, Cyrix, and any of the other competitors over the years. If their yield was good, then there was no reason for them to be higher priced. I always felt that they were gouging the customers, so I quit designing them into my systems. Since they are still higher priced than AMD for competing parts, I wonder if their yield has always been not so good.
Their yields have been good, but I suspect that Intel is just following basic marketing and sales. Why sell for cheaper if you don't need to? If the customer is willing to buy an inferior product at a similar or higher price, Intel can get away with this for a short period of time, much as IBM did with its PC division in the late 80's. However, sooner or later customers will realize this and buy more competitive products.Fortunately for Intel, they have a lot of money and can spend to overcome these issues by having greater production capacity and lots of marketing.
So, where are the hordes of IE fanboys trying to kill off Firefox?
Unfortunately, most corporate environments do not allow users to install their favorite browsers OR tools. These users are forced to use whatever software the IT/security groups have blessed. Most of these machines are probably created from images anyhow, so I'd guess that 95+% of corporate machines are still using IE.More likely, the GP meant that while IBM does a lot of research, it does a horrible job of putting together useful products in a timely manner.