And a single F22 can eliminate the NEED for a significant number of troops, along with their equipment suh as body armor and AFVs.
No aircraft can hold territory, which is the area in which our military needs the most improvement.
The sea wolf submarine - it wasn't a white element at the time. The F22 has been in development since before the cold war ended.
Why weren't these programs canceled? Why didn't we cancel the F-22 project and cut our losses when it became apparent that the plane was obsolete before it was even built? Why didn't we skip straight to the F-35 (which is even cheaper to build and service). Neither the F-22 nor the Seawolf submarine are necessary. Our current air force and navy are certainly capable of tiding us over until the stuff designed for the post-Cold War world is in production.
Seawolf class is designed to be able to project power.
Don't we have the Los Angeles class of submarines that do that already? Why are we spending money building a new class of submarine (arguably accelerating the global arms race) rather than maintaining the current class while investing in other, more pressing areas. Our navy is already twenty years ahead of everyone else. Our army isn't. Why are we investing the navy, rather than the army?
Just FYI, the F-22 Raptor, including the purchasing of a fleet of them, accounts for only 2% of the total DoD budget and will save the military billions in the years to come because they will be able to retire the old 25 year old technology jets.
A few points in response:
First, while the F-22 by itself may be only a small issue, it is a symptom of a much greater ailment. For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a threat that no longer exists. The design was hastily retrofitted to allow for the placement of special forces troops, but that doesn't change the fact that the submarine is a white elephant that could be replaced by something cheaper.
Second, the military budget is huge. 2% of a very large number is still a very large number. Each F-22 costs ~$200 million. That money could outfit a significant number of troops with better body armor and more heavily armored vehicles.
Third, what is the overall cost of maintenance of these new toys? The stealth coatings and advanced avionics used in modern jets could conceivably require more maintenance and upgrades in the long term, nullifying the effects of being able to retire outdated aircraft.
Been paying attention lately? Cut backs in the military to the point we can't even afford to put body armor on our troops? Somehow, I think Military funding already IS the issue.
That's more an issue of military waste, rather than military funding. We have the Pentagon wasting billions on obsolete, cold-war era equipment (F-22, B-2, Crusader, etc.) while not funding body armor and new mine-resistant vehicles. Its not that the military doesn't have enough money, its that they're not spending it in a productive fashion. Historically, the Army and Marines have always been screwed when it comes to funding whereas the the Navy and Air Force consistently get funding for new billion dollar toys. Throwing more money at the military is not going to fix this issue.
Which NPR station are you listening to? All of the ones I've listened to have been pretty balanced, with a slight liberal bias. At least its this way on Minnesota Public Radio (KNOW) and WGBH Boston, which are two of the larger public radio outfits.
It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.
I'm not sure that's exactly the case. Target Tech. didn't patent the concept of a mirror, they just patented a specific substance that makes a mirror more reflective. That said, Sony still might be in the right, especially considering that they might have prior art.
If you use the internet to make a purchase from a business that has no prescence in that state, you are exempt from state taxes. This is why Newegg will charge you tax if you live in New Jersey (they have their distribution center there).
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.
I don't think so. Here (Minneapolis, MN) many people do use the bus to commute, and I'd think a lot more would if only the buses would go to their workplaces at the times they work. You see, the transit system here assumes that everyone works from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. in downtown. Work in another suburb? You're outta luck. Don't hold to the traditional 9-5 schedule? Again, no buses for you.
I'm a student living at home. I work in the mornings and have classes in the evenings. My schedule is the exact opposite of the bus schedule - e.g. I need to go downtown when the buses are moving people out to the suburbs. Therefore, I drive. I wish I didn't have to (parking is expensive and difficult to find), but I don't have any other option.
I think class snobbery is overrated when looking at the reasons that people don't ride the bus. Increasingly businesses no longer congregate in a centralized downtown. Increasingly, people want to work on schedules that fit their needs. I think mass transit should change to address that.
Proprietary software is not practical, especially in the long term.
That's got to be the dumbest argument I've heard in favor of Free/Open Source Software in a long time. Look at IBM's mainframes. I don't think you could get more closed or proprietary. Yet, many businesses have stuck by them due to the fact that backwards compatibility is never broken on those machines. Heck, you could run OS360 packages from the 70's on the modern zOS machines without a problem.
I think its just a bit extreme to say that no proprietary solution is practical in the long term. It depends on the application, the stability of the provider, and the relationship that you have with the provider. These three criteria apply whether the provider is the open-source community or a private company.
I'm not sure that nano-scale structures are visible with conventional light microscopes. I was always under the impression that you'd have to look at the thing with an electron microscope to see the "nanotech" features.
WoW may be simplistic compared to its predecessors and competitors, but it's been as well-produced as any other Blizzard product-- that is to say, polished to an eye-searing shine.
I've found that to be the case with most Blizzard games. They don't do anything particularly innovative (Real Time Strategy existed before Warcraft, MMORPGs existed before WoW), but the level of polish on a Blizzard game is far above and beyond any other game in the same genre.
Heck, look at Starcraft. That game is still being sold and played, despite approaching 10 years of age. Reason: the game was simple to understand and play, and the races were far more balanced than in any other game of that time. Nothing really new or innovative, but the overall execution was of high quality, ensuring continued success.
EVE Online is one of the largest MMORPGs out there. Its also possibly the only successful science fiction based MMO game. Given these two characteristics, combined with the fact that EVE's developer team is much more hands-off with regard to player-to-player interaction, I'm surprised that EVE was nowhere to be found the article.
For instance, LOTRO rewards the repetitive actions often required in online games. In return for slaughtering large numbers of one type of creature players will become more powerful or gain a fancy title to demonstrates their prowess.
In this way, he said, LOTRO hopes to avoid the "grind" that afflicts the middle ranks of those adventuring in WoW.
How does this system eliminate grinding? It seems to me that it would exacerbate the grinding problems as players would grind even more in order to get the additional power and titles conferred by grinding mid-level mobs.
Capitalism is a complete seperation of economics and state, and anything less is a violation of rights.
No. You're thinking of lassiez-faire capitalism, where the government is totally "hands off" with regard to the economy. Capitalism simply means that the government doesn't make all of the production decisions. The government is free to regulate the market, but as long as the government doesn't totally control the assignment of resources to industries, then there is capitalism of some sort.
Ah yes, the GMAC business model. Lose money selling cars, make money charging interest.
Not to go too far offtopic, but why did GM sell off GMAC? It was the only division in the entire company that was turning a profit. True, they did get a nice chunk of change for it, but once that one-time cash infusion is gone, there'll be nothing holding GM together...
Now in this case obviously there is intent to distribute modifications to Linux in the device(s) the company will sell, but still.
As I recall, TiVo "distributes" its modified code every time it sells a device. However, TiVo doesn't give away the modifications to the kernel in their device. Is TiVo violating the GPL? If not, then why does the OP's company have to give away their modifications?
As I recall, TiVo made the argument that they were primarily distributing hardware, and that the fact that the hardware ran a modified version of Linux was incidental. Can the OP's company use the same argument?
Not necessarily. While there would be a greater incentive to create bots, there would be also be more outcry against this form of cheating, and more pressure on the game server admins to enforce anti-cheating rules. Its one thing to lose a few points when a cheating sniper owns you with an aimbot. Its quite another thing when you lose a couple dollars for the same reason.
Why was the parent modded redundant? Browsing at +1, its the first comment on the page...
The only problem with that analogy is that it doesn't differentiate between a circuit-switched network (phones) and a packet-switched network (the Internet).
Most data is sent across TCP connections, which do a pretty good job of emulating a circuit switched connection on a packet switched network. Also, many types of phone service (calling cards especially) are packet switched as well, with the actual packet switched nature being hidden under a layer of abstraction.
With term limits, everyone is a junior and the lobbyists just roll right over them.
In my experience, its been that the junior congresspeople are most resistant to lobbyists. Not only are they not as used to the perks and favors that lobbyists provide, but they've been in the cloistered world of politics for a shorter amount of time, which means that they have a greater sense of how the world works outside of the capital.
Also, term limits allow congresspeople to have a "lame duck" cycle in which they don't have to worry about getting re-elected, and therefore can focus on the long-term good of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
That's certainly true. I don't think you'll find many generals who are fans of SDI, for instance...
No aircraft can hold territory, which is the area in which our military needs the most improvement.
Why weren't these programs canceled? Why didn't we cancel the F-22 project and cut our losses when it became apparent that the plane was obsolete before it was even built? Why didn't we skip straight to the F-35 (which is even cheaper to build and service). Neither the F-22 nor the Seawolf submarine are necessary. Our current air force and navy are certainly capable of tiding us over until the stuff designed for the post-Cold War world is in production.
Don't we have the Los Angeles class of submarines that do that already? Why are we spending money building a new class of submarine (arguably accelerating the global arms race) rather than maintaining the current class while investing in other, more pressing areas. Our navy is already twenty years ahead of everyone else. Our army isn't. Why are we investing the navy, rather than the army?
A few points in response:
First, while the F-22 by itself may be only a small issue, it is a symptom of a much greater ailment. For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a threat that no longer exists. The design was hastily retrofitted to allow for the placement of special forces troops, but that doesn't change the fact that the submarine is a white elephant that could be replaced by something cheaper.
Second, the military budget is huge. 2% of a very large number is still a very large number. Each F-22 costs ~$200 million. That money could outfit a significant number of troops with better body armor and more heavily armored vehicles.
Third, what is the overall cost of maintenance of these new toys? The stealth coatings and advanced avionics used in modern jets could conceivably require more maintenance and upgrades in the long term, nullifying the effects of being able to retire outdated aircraft.
That's more an issue of military waste, rather than military funding. We have the Pentagon wasting billions on obsolete, cold-war era equipment (F-22, B-2, Crusader, etc.) while not funding body armor and new mine-resistant vehicles. Its not that the military doesn't have enough money, its that they're not spending it in a productive fashion. Historically, the Army and Marines have always been screwed when it comes to funding whereas the the Navy and Air Force consistently get funding for new billion dollar toys. Throwing more money at the military is not going to fix this issue.
Which NPR station are you listening to? All of the ones I've listened to have been pretty balanced, with a slight liberal bias. At least its this way on Minnesota Public Radio (KNOW) and WGBH Boston, which are two of the larger public radio outfits.
It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.
I'm not sure that's exactly the case. Target Tech. didn't patent the concept of a mirror, they just patented a specific substance that makes a mirror more reflective. That said, Sony still might be in the right, especially considering that they might have prior art.
That's true. However, that tax relies on self-reporting, which essentially makes it unenforceable.
C isn't the only language that you can implement a compiler in. Haskell might use another language, such as ML for its compiler.
If you use the internet to make a purchase from a business that has no prescence in that state, you are exempt from state taxes. This is why Newegg will charge you tax if you live in New Jersey (they have their distribution center there).
I don't think so. Here (Minneapolis, MN) many people do use the bus to commute, and I'd think a lot more would if only the buses would go to their workplaces at the times they work. You see, the transit system here assumes that everyone works from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. in downtown. Work in another suburb? You're outta luck. Don't hold to the traditional 9-5 schedule? Again, no buses for you.
I'm a student living at home. I work in the mornings and have classes in the evenings. My schedule is the exact opposite of the bus schedule - e.g. I need to go downtown when the buses are moving people out to the suburbs. Therefore, I drive. I wish I didn't have to (parking is expensive and difficult to find), but I don't have any other option.
I think class snobbery is overrated when looking at the reasons that people don't ride the bus. Increasingly businesses no longer congregate in a centralized downtown. Increasingly, people want to work on schedules that fit their needs. I think mass transit should change to address that.
That's got to be the dumbest argument I've heard in favor of Free/Open Source Software in a long time. Look at IBM's mainframes. I don't think you could get more closed or proprietary. Yet, many businesses have stuck by them due to the fact that backwards compatibility is never broken on those machines. Heck, you could run OS360 packages from the 70's on the modern zOS machines without a problem.
I think its just a bit extreme to say that no proprietary solution is practical in the long term. It depends on the application, the stability of the provider, and the relationship that you have with the provider. These three criteria apply whether the provider is the open-source community or a private company.
I'm pretty sure they're already laughing. And, in the case of China, they own so many US Treasuries they can afford to laugh all the way to the bank.
Minor quibble: Scourge take only 1/3 of a food unit each - you get 3 per larva.
Starcraft has a cap of 200 units per player. While that sounds immense, I've run into that cap several times (especially with Zerg).
I'm not sure that nano-scale structures are visible with conventional light microscopes. I was always under the impression that you'd have to look at the thing with an electron microscope to see the "nanotech" features.
I've found that to be the case with most Blizzard games. They don't do anything particularly innovative (Real Time Strategy existed before Warcraft, MMORPGs existed before WoW), but the level of polish on a Blizzard game is far above and beyond any other game in the same genre.
Heck, look at Starcraft. That game is still being sold and played, despite approaching 10 years of age. Reason: the game was simple to understand and play, and the races were far more balanced than in any other game of that time. Nothing really new or innovative, but the overall execution was of high quality, ensuring continued success.
EVE Online is one of the largest MMORPGs out there. Its also possibly the only successful science fiction based MMO game. Given these two characteristics, combined with the fact that EVE's developer team is much more hands-off with regard to player-to-player interaction, I'm surprised that EVE was nowhere to be found the article.
From the article:
How does this system eliminate grinding? It seems to me that it would exacerbate the grinding problems as players would grind even more in order to get the additional power and titles conferred by grinding mid-level mobs.
Capitalism is a complete seperation of economics and state, and anything less is a violation of rights.
No. You're thinking of lassiez-faire capitalism, where the government is totally "hands off" with regard to the economy. Capitalism simply means that the government doesn't make all of the production decisions. The government is free to regulate the market, but as long as the government doesn't totally control the assignment of resources to industries, then there is capitalism of some sort.
Not to go too far offtopic, but why did GM sell off GMAC? It was the only division in the entire company that was turning a profit. True, they did get a nice chunk of change for it, but once that one-time cash infusion is gone, there'll be nothing holding GM together...
As I recall, TiVo "distributes" its modified code every time it sells a device. However, TiVo doesn't give away the modifications to the kernel in their device. Is TiVo violating the GPL? If not, then why does the OP's company have to give away their modifications?
As I recall, TiVo made the argument that they were primarily distributing hardware, and that the fact that the hardware ran a modified version of Linux was incidental. Can the OP's company use the same argument?
Not necessarily. While there would be a greater incentive to create bots, there would be also be more outcry against this form of cheating, and more pressure on the game server admins to enforce anti-cheating rules. Its one thing to lose a few points when a cheating sniper owns you with an aimbot. Its quite another thing when you lose a couple dollars for the same reason.
Why was the parent modded redundant? Browsing at +1, its the first comment on the page...
Most data is sent across TCP connections, which do a pretty good job of emulating a circuit switched connection on a packet switched network. Also, many types of phone service (calling cards especially) are packet switched as well, with the actual packet switched nature being hidden under a layer of abstraction.
In my experience, its been that the junior congresspeople are most resistant to lobbyists. Not only are they not as used to the perks and favors that lobbyists provide, but they've been in the cloistered world of politics for a shorter amount of time, which means that they have a greater sense of how the world works outside of the capital.
Also, term limits allow congresspeople to have a "lame duck" cycle in which they don't have to worry about getting re-elected, and therefore can focus on the long-term good of the country.