I lived through a US hurricane season back in 1996 and the area had underground power and phone lines. Two major hurricanes hit the area with enough force to knock down trees and cause other damage, yet I spent my time during both hurricanes gaming online with no service interruption. Yes the lights blinked a few times and the power went out once for 3 minutes, but I had a decent UPS and didn't go offline ONCE during either hurricane.
It's possible to make the basic service infrastructure in an area resistant to storm damage, but it takes a dedicated effort that many regions are unwilling to undertake. In the meantime, your only practical option is to take a look around for power and phone lines when you move into an area. If you don't see any poles or lines, then maybe your power and phone lines are underground and safe from everything but unchecked water intrusion and the occasional casual backhoe operator.
Seriously. I hold copyright to items that may be illegally copied to digital and/or analog media without permission, so I'm entitled to a cut of the proceeds. Show me the money.
In other news, slashdot posters guilty of posting comments intended to spark debate and foster discussion of interesting topics!
It's sort of like accusing a congressman of creating and passing good legislation because he has a secret desire to get re-elected, or accusing someone of going to work to get paid. Imagine the nerve of some people!
In US military jargon, "Joint" means between the separate US services. Using "Joint" to refer to multi-national efforts is a terrible misuse of the term. "Combined" is actually the more correct term to mean a multi-national effort, but I think they were using the "JSF" name long before the program grew into the massive multi-national program it is today.
It's quibbling to a certain extent, but specific words have VERY specific meanings and it's easy to create huge misunderstandings when incorrectly using words that have very precise meanings in a military context.
The issue is very valid. The question is twofold - Is the US willing to fully share ALL of our military technology with any other country during a period of relative peace (even as strong an ally as the UK), and what price are we willing to pay to keep our most advanced military capabilities to ourselves? Security vs. the budget. A military expert will say that it's stupid to spill all your secrets to ANYONE because mere knowledge of a capability is enough to allow an adversary (or potential adversary) to begin defeating that capability. A budget planner will say that without sharing the technology with partners who will share the program costs, we can't afford to build the hardware so those capabilities would remain purely theoretical (worthless).
Maybe it's better to do the basic research ourselves but not go that final step to building the hardware until we actually need to use it. This seems to happen a lot, holding back expensive upgrades and hardware purchases until a conflict kicks off, then funding/fielding the new stuff immediately as the budget expands when a conflict arises. But the JSF is such a massive project, it may not be possible to back-burner the program as a US-only effort. That means we may have to compromise some very unique capabilities in order to be able to actually field them ourselves. Tough choice.
Can't blame the JSF partners for playing hardball though... The JSF is almost entirely software driven as almost every single system is operated via a touch-screen interface instead of traditional switches, so not having the source code means that when something breaks, fixing it is somewhat more problematic than replacing a defective hardware switch. If you don't have the code, you have a really expensive flying Xbox that could quit working without warning and can't possibly be repaired.
You can't even replace busted hardware without the required software, because the hardware is all operated and tested via software. You can't just flip a switch to test the radar, because the switch is controlled by the computer which (should) report system status and troubleshooting data if it quits working.
A sensible approach would be to distribute an export version of the software, but I'm pretty sure that the original contract did not include parallel-but-equal lines of code development. To duplicate a multi-million-line codebase at this stage in the program would be cost prohibitive. You'd think they would have thought of this before... Like 15 years ago...
Rent or buy Rip Convert to a viewable format Return to store, possibly with a complaint that the disc is incompatible Burn compatible formatted version to dual layer DVD Watch at own convenience on any device
Real world training can transfer to gaming to a certain extent, but there are considerations required for gaming that can't be gotten from real life experience. The user interface, small/distorted viewport looking through the monitor, and network transmission lag time all require game-specific reflexes and skills. For that reason, gaming skills don't transfer too well to real life either. The reflexes and priorities are simply tuned wrong.
I will say that a flight-sim gamer would do a lot better in a real aircraft than someone with no experience at all. But a real life fighter pilot is going to romp all over a gaming "ace" simply due to the depth of real life considerations that he's learned to deal with, such as the demanding physical environment. As with anything, some people are "naturals" and for these few people, flightsims are just another dynamic experience that will transfer to anything they do, from flying to playing golf. But for most people, there is no substitute for actual flight time.
The best book I can think of for a gaming simmer is Robert Shaw's "Figher Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering". I think it's still in limited print, otherwise you should be able to easily find a used copy on Amazon or wherever. It's a bit dated where it comes to modern jet combat, but if you can handle the level of detail it's probably the best introduction to aerial combat you'll find anywhere outside of a secure military location. The list of sources is worth just as much as the book itself, and if I recall correctly (I read Shaw's book at around age 14 in high school) you could probably find enough reading material referenced in this one book to keep you busy for a couple of years.
If you want to get really "good at flight sims", check out Aces High 2 at http://www.hitechcreations.com/ You won't find a better place to improve flightsim skills against real opponents than in the AH arenas. Yea there's a monthly fee to use the full arenas, but their head 2 head arenas and software are free if you just want to check it out without subscribing.
Does your ego routinely write checks that your body can't cash?
I flew fighters and primary trainers (up to 6.5 G's in the trainers) for 6 years with a herniated L5-S1 disc, and I'm not the only one who made the choice to ignore a medical problem to keep flying. 3 months post-surgery, I was back instructing and 4 months after that I was back in fighters.
It takes a certain amount of aggressiveness and arrogance to be a fighter pilot, but we're not all pegged at the far end of the scale. And arrogance does not always go along with aggressiveness. We simply MUST be aggressive when it is appropriate to be aggressive, because we'll be dead or won't accomplish our mission if we're not. And there is a VERY fine line between having the confidence in your abilities necessary to do our job, and being an arrogant asshole.
As I said before, we've all been through a rigorous selection process that emphasizes competence and harshly screens out weakness, because in our line of business the weak and/or incompetent die fast.
Hey eagl, serious question...how tough is your job? I know its got some perks, like pushing the limit in a multimillion dollar fighter jet with the capability to unleash massive destruction....but what are the downsides? Does anything in the job ever make you think to yourself "man, I gotta get out of this"?
I won't compare it to other tough jobs, but it is very stressful. A 12 hour work day is standard when flying due to 12 hour off-duty rest requirements prior to the next flight (leaving 12 hours to work, right?) and since we're so macho, anyone griping about the work is laughed at so the work pretty much builds to completely fill our day. It's not uncommon to arrive at work at 0400 in the morning and go home at 8 pm that night if you're not flying the next day, otherwise you leave work 12 hours before you have to be at work the next day.
Add on the death/destruction nature of the work, having close friends of yours get splattered from hitting the ground at 600 knots following as little as 4 seconds of inattention, 4 or more months away from home every year, moving your family to the other side of the world every 2 or 3 years, and the stress/strain adds up.
On top of that, the fact that a fighter pilot is the end result of a series of selection processes means that everyone we work with has been at the top of almost every competitive endeavor they've ever tried in their entire life. A quick example, is my career. And I'm not even all that good...
These numbers are by memory, so some of them may be a bit off. But the order of magnitude will be correct... The year I went to the USAF Academy, there were around 250,000 inquiries. Of those, there were around 50,000 people who met the minimum entrance requirements. Of those, 10,000 were highly qualified. Of those, approx 1,600 were accepted. By the time I graduated, fully 1/3 of my class had quit or washed out. Of the 1000 graduates in my class, approx 800 were medically qualified for pilot training, but due to post-cold war drawdowns, there were only 225 pilot training slots. So just in getting my pilot training slot, I was one of 225 selected from a pool of over 350,000 potential applicants.
At pilot training, my class had 32 students. Of those 32, only 6 went to the fighter/bomber track. Of those 6, only 4 got fighters.
Not trying to beat my chest, but I'm trying to get across the point that not only is uncompromising drive for excellence and actual job competence a requirement, everyone else I work with has these same values and to some degree, if we want to get promoted then we must somehow stand out from our peers. That's easier for some people than others, and frankly sometimes it seems like I struggle just to keep up with everyone else just because everyone else is so damn good.
I won't dig too deep into the remaining sources of stress, except to mention that our primary job, that of being a fighter pilot, is extremely difficult and complex. Technology, tactics, and threats are constantly changing and failing to keep up results in getting killed, getting your wingman killed, not hitting your target or worse, killing the wrong people when employing weapons. I fully understand that the guy changing the oil in my car may have just as much pride in his job as anyone else, but nobody's going to get killed if he can't recite the molecular composition of every major brand of oil on the market or describe in detail the construction methods used to make an oil filter. You can bet that (as one small example) needing to memorize the tactical capabilities and limitations of around 100 enemy weapons systems is going to be a source of stress.
A quick note about medical issues - I estimate up to 20% of pilots I've flown with have serious but undiagnosed back injuries. They are undiagnosed because as soon as you tell the doc about them, you're grounded. I flew on a herniated L5-S1 disc for 6 years before the pain crippled me and I had to go to the doc to get it fixed. I
I gave up a great programming job in 1990 that would pay me as an intern through college and then hire full time on graduation at over $35,000 entry level, not bad back in 1990. 10 years later, I passed up an opportunity to transition to an airline job that would pay in excess of $120,000/year after 3 years in the company. I married a doctor 3 years ago and if I quit my job today, she could join a private practice and make well over $350,000 per year while I kicked it doing... well, anything really.
What job has led me to make these financially retarded career moves?
It's a shameless plug, but check with my bro. andy at andylong dot org. He's just starting up and only has a few clients, but he's totally customer oriented and will meet any budget to keep a good client.
Wasn't this called Prodigy a dozen years back? Or maybe it was AOL? Or Genie? Anyone remember why those services were surpassed by adoption of the "raw" internet as somehow more desirable than these tailored sandbox-safe services? When the "raw" internet became usable to the average person?
Unless google has some compelling service that can't be had on the internet, any restrictive service won't work. And if they do put up a compelling service, it's only a matter of time before the geek/guru/wizard types among us put those service onto the internet for everyone to use.
Marketing question - would anyone pay for fiber to their home at ANY price point, if the only content was the modern equivalent of mid-90's AOL specific services? I wouldn't...
Nvidia is an EXAMPLE. If you had the reading comprehension of a snail, you'd see the point I was making is that it's important to do the research BEFORE buying. Duh. The thread parent specifically mentioned that he knew nothing about video cards, he bought a $50 "upgrade", and then it wouldn't do what he wanted it to do.
Well no shit. Buying random crap and putting it into your computer, then blaming the manufacturer because you didn't read the specs and match it to the hardware compatability list, is stupid.
But you're obviously intent on finding something to flame instead of adding anything to the discussion... People like you, self-important tards with a narrow outlook on how things must be done, are a clear example of why some people have problems getting their computers to work. Your advice is worth shit unless everything is done your way, because you're too narrow minded to realize that there are mroe flexible options out there.
Yes, if he is only ever going to run FC, and FC doesn't work with ANY nvidia hardware (unlikely unless you're stupid and don't know how to do anything), then an nvidia purchase is a bad idea. But that gets to my point - do the research FIRST instead of buying cheap incompatible hardware and bitching about it.
The point is still valid, even for non-gamers. The fact is that driver development focuses on newer hardware, and the $50 price point is "low end" regardless of whether you're a gamer or not.
As for Linux, what's so unusual about getting a decent video card for linux? Many distributions offer accelerated drivers that take advantage of newer video chips, and buying a better video card can also get you an overall better image even in regular 2D and text useage. My 6800GT looks pretty good in Linux, gives me all sorts of options, has great hardware acceleration with the right drivers which makes the entire computer feel snappier, and normal text looks great at very high resolutions and refresh rates. A cheap video card will often fuzz out or bog down at high resolutions, color depths, and refresh rates.
In high school and college I was on a pretty strict budget and was forced to buy less expensive hardware, but at least I did the minimum amount of research to find out which video card chipset met my needs instead of buying a card and then griping when it wouldn't do what I wanted it to do. I checked the hardware compatibility lists, looked for standard configs, checked chipset features, found out (for example) if slackware used the acceleration features on the cirrus logic cl 5424 chips, etc. And only twice in 14 years of buying computer hardware have I been disappointed in a video card purchase.
Hell, when you use a computer, what 4 components get 99% of your attention? The keyboard, mouse, monitor, and video card feeding the signal to the monitor. Why ignore or go cheap on the one part that generates the image you're looking at? Yea if you're only using text consoles or building a server, then get the lowest price and lowest power consumption part you can find. But if you're using any kind of graphical interface, it pays to do the research on the parts even if you're buying at the low-end for a computer that doesn't run windows and isn't being used for gaming.
Not doing the research and buying the specific features you want is just plain retarded. You may as well toss your money in the trash, because at the low end you can still find video cards using chipsets designed 10 years ago. There is no excuse for being suprised that your computer hardware is not up to any particular task, because the info is out there if you spend just a little time looking it up.
The only reason I even mention gaming and video cards is because the best hardware reviews are usually done by gamers or other "enthusiast" web sites. Most non-enthusiast sites just parrot what the manufacturer has to say, but an enthusiast site, whether it's a PVR, linux, gaming, programming, photography, CAD, or whatever site, is more likely to take the time to really dig into the feature set and explain what cards are good for what tasks.
Again, at the $100 price point you're a hell of a lot more likely to get a card that uses reasonably modern technology, has current drivers, will work with every software package out there, and will produce a crisp image on your monitor. That has little to do with gaming, and the mystical "price/performance" line that the original post mentions is around $150-$200 for games anyhow. Around $100 gets you a relatively new, high quality part, that you won't be bitching about the day after you install it. Heck, you can even get low-end VIVO at the $100 price point.
Too expensive anyhow? Mow a couple of lawns, quit smoking, or drink less beer. Worked for me... Not buying beer/smokes in college let me save $40/month more than some of my friends, and as a result I was able to build a nice economical snappy linux box that was almost as quick as the workstations in the school computer lab. So instead of walking thru the snow to the computer lab, I could connect from my dorm room and do my work without having to change out of my jammies.
You had problems because you bought the $50 price point. Those cards are usually based on years-old designs, are not tested with the latest drivers and games, and may not be any better than the onboard graphics solution. You would have had a lot better luck at the $100 to $150 point which typically uses current or just-previous designs, complete with up to date driver support that is tested to work with current games. Doing a little research and reading the hardware requirements for a game is well worth the time, and if you had done your homework you probably would have learned that the $50 card you were thinking about buying was not suitable for gaming.
I'll admit that the manufacturer is probably culpable for advertising that $50 card as an "upgrade" but you bought cheap and got cheap, so what did you expect?
The last good AGP cards are the Nvidia 6800 series and some ATI X800 cards. You should be able to find one for around $200 (6800GS or 6800GT) that will run games just fine for another couple of years. If you need more performance though, you're pretty much stuck getting a complete new system.
Now is actually not a bad time to get a new system, especially if you go with an AMD cpu. Every component is at a "mature" point in their lifecycle and that means you're not paying for bleeding edge tech, and you have a smaller chance of getting stuck with something that doesn't quite work right. Athlon 64 cpus are fast and run relatively cool, socket 939 nforce4 motherboards are inexpensive and have a very wide range of features from bare-bones to premium boards with high quality onboard sound, dual gigabit lan, firewire, etc., pci-e video cards are available from under $100 to over $500, and SATA hard drives are fast and cheaper per gigabyte than ever before. DDR memory is readily available and cheap (2 gig of high quality PC3200 can be had for under $150), dual layer DVD burners are under $80, and both CRT and LCD displays are very affordable.
So there is no technological reason to NOT buy a complete system refresh right now. You'll always get something better/faster/cheaper if you can wait, but if you're unsatisfied with what you have NOW and there is no reasonable minor upgrade path that will satisfy your needs, then there is no non-financial reason to not do a total refresh now.
Like others have said, check out the system guides at http://www.anandtech.com/. http://www.hardocp.com/ also has hardware reviews from a gaming perspective. An Athlon 64 3700+ matched to an ASUS A8N Deluxe, with an Nvidia 7800GT and 2x1 gig sticks of PC3200 memory would make the foundation for a very nice multi-purpose computer that would also be a great gaming machine. You should be able to part together a very nice rig for under $1200, using very fast but completely mature components.
Won't this mess up the natural mixing currents that already go on? The global warming crowd is convinced that the ocean's natural mixing patterns are being disrupted and this will cause unpredictable climate changes and they have some data to back up their statements that a previously stable system is being disrupted, but now people are talking about deliberate disruption of the temperature gradiants and thermocline?
It really does not sound responsible to me. We're already tampering with the climate and simply don't know what the real effect is from any particular human activity, but we ought to be able to anticipate that transferring energy from one side of the thermocline to the other is going to cause at least a local disruption in a natural system.
Just because it doesn't burn fossil fuels doesn't automatically make it a good idea...
The discussion about requiring a pilots license with instrument rating is pretty detailed in the proposal, and you're right that it's going to be a hot issue. The proposal goes back and forth about the merits of requiring a pilots license and instrument rating vs. requiring that the space pilot applicant demonstrate competence in some other fashion, and I think that for the purposes of this initial and temporary set of regulations, requiring a pilots license and instrument rating is probably the best/cheapest/least intrusive option.
The logic used in the proposal is that regardless of the nature of the spacecraft, winged or not, powered or not, piloting it will undoubtedly require knowledge of the national airspace system and the ability to perform piloting tasks under disorienting conditions by reference to instruments alone. The closest formal certification process in existence that mirrors those basic skills is a pilots license with instrument rating.
The other side of the coin is that in the absence of this requirement, a spaceflight applicant would be required to demonstrate competency. But how would they do so to the satisfaction of an FAA examiner? Even ignoring the fact that each spaceship will be different and require a different knowledge/skill set, except for a few multi-million dollar simulators owned by NASA, there are no certified spaceship simulators on the planet. So the process of certifying a spaceship pilot would begin with FAA certification and approval of a sufficiently realistic and equivalent simulator and examination process. My guess is that this requirement alone would be cost prohibitive. How could an applicant with no current aeronautic certifications or qualifications prove that he is competent without demonstrating many hours of performance under sufficiently demanding circumstances, including emergency procedures training and profiency? And the applicant would still have to be knowledgable enough of the national airspace system to pass a competency exam, which would require some sort of ground school academic course.
In the face of the challenges involved in creating a new spaceship pilot rating without any historical (civilian) background to give perspective and insight into what skills are actually required, it seems only logical to follow the two-step requirement outlined in the proposal. The pilot must have a pilots license and instrument rating which ensures a specific skillset is already in place, plus there must be a demonstrated effort to be competent in the spacecraft to be utilized. No spacecraft pilot performance standards can be set without knowing what is going to really be required, until there is some data to dig through. This way, everyone benefits at the lowest price point possible.
In a decade or two, I expect we'll see a new set of pilots license categories, including specific types such as powered and unpowered winged spaceflight, vertical landing (also powered and unpowered), with modifiers for ballistic, lift-aided, ground launch, or air-launch takeoffs. I don't think there's enough data or enough time to come up with the standards before it's time to authorize more launches and commercial operation however, so as an interim fix I think they're on the right path.
Those griping about the proposed licencing requirements ought to be careful what they ask for, because if they get it they'll probably be far less happy with the regulatory alternative.
As a USAF pilot and mild space enthusiast, much of the proposal sounds very well thought out. The discussion points about topics such as licensing and qualification requirements and medical standards show that they have considered numerous alternatives and are interested in creating regulations that enhance safety and protect the public, without placing unnecessary burdens on companies, crews, and passengers wishing to participate in spaceflight.
Plus they're actively asking for input, and discuss input they've already received.
It really looks like a good faith effort to allow reasonable spaceflight efforts, with an eye on public safety.
I thought it telling that right away, they list "citizen explorers" as a category of people who will be conducting spaceflights under these regulations. They're specifically addressing the understanding that this will be a risky business that should still be allowed and encouraged.
Lots of blah blah comments so far including one tard griping about the pdf document format (get a life dude), but very few have bothered to read any of the proposal. I recommend taking the time to at least browse through it... I think it will be educational.
I've carried the 9mm (USAF) in a combat zone and it's the source of many jokes. It is a weak round with limited stopping or penetrating power. I am also not given the option to use/carry any other weapon on duty. In Desert Storm, many USAF pilots brought their own more powerful weapons with them because the 9mm round sucks, but they've tightened down the rules since then.
I own the same beretta used by the military, but chambered in.40 cal. It has the exact same dimensions as the 9mm but the.40cal round has a lot more stopping power. But I wouldn't be allowed to take it with me to Iraq. Special forces and other troops with specific requirements are authorized alternative weapons, but for the average troop you get an M-16 variant or the 9mm Beretta.
I know someone who jokes that the only thing the 9mm is good for is convincing someone nearby to give up their M-16 (haha). Realistically, the usual plan is if they're stuck with only the 9mm pistol for some reason, just keep it in the holster because it identifies them as an officer, and pick up whatever else gets dropped by the first casualties. If that means picking up an AK or whatever the enemy is using, that's fine too.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived through a US hurricane season back in 1996 and the area had underground power and phone lines. Two major hurricanes hit the area with enough force to knock down trees and cause other damage, yet I spent my time during both hurricanes gaming online with no service interruption. Yes the lights blinked a few times and the power went out once for 3 minutes, but I had a decent UPS and didn't go offline ONCE during either hurricane.
It's possible to make the basic service infrastructure in an area resistant to storm damage, but it takes a dedicated effort that many regions are unwilling to undertake. In the meantime, your only practical option is to take a look around for power and phone lines when you move into an area. If you don't see any poles or lines, then maybe your power and phone lines are underground and safe from everything but unchecked water intrusion and the occasional casual backhoe operator.
I'm a copyright holder... Where's my check?
Seriously. I hold copyright to items that may be illegally copied to digital and/or analog media without permission, so I'm entitled to a cut of the proceeds. Show me the money.
In other news, slashdot posters guilty of posting comments intended to spark debate and foster discussion of interesting topics!
It's sort of like accusing a congressman of creating and passing good legislation because he has a secret desire to get re-elected, or accusing someone of going to work to get paid. Imagine the nerve of some people!
So, who do I have to bribe to get my robotic godzilla darpa project funded???!!!!!111one
In US military jargon, "Joint" means between the separate US services. Using "Joint" to refer to multi-national efforts is a terrible misuse of the term. "Combined" is actually the more correct term to mean a multi-national effort, but I think they were using the "JSF" name long before the program grew into the massive multi-national program it is today.
It's quibbling to a certain extent, but specific words have VERY specific meanings and it's easy to create huge misunderstandings when incorrectly using words that have very precise meanings in a military context.
The issue is very valid. The question is twofold - Is the US willing to fully share ALL of our military technology with any other country during a period of relative peace (even as strong an ally as the UK), and what price are we willing to pay to keep our most advanced military capabilities to ourselves? Security vs. the budget. A military expert will say that it's stupid to spill all your secrets to ANYONE because mere knowledge of a capability is enough to allow an adversary (or potential adversary) to begin defeating that capability. A budget planner will say that without sharing the technology with partners who will share the program costs, we can't afford to build the hardware so those capabilities would remain purely theoretical (worthless).
Maybe it's better to do the basic research ourselves but not go that final step to building the hardware until we actually need to use it. This seems to happen a lot, holding back expensive upgrades and hardware purchases until a conflict kicks off, then funding/fielding the new stuff immediately as the budget expands when a conflict arises. But the JSF is such a massive project, it may not be possible to back-burner the program as a US-only effort. That means we may have to compromise some very unique capabilities in order to be able to actually field them ourselves. Tough choice.
Can't blame the JSF partners for playing hardball though... The JSF is almost entirely software driven as almost every single system is operated via a touch-screen interface instead of traditional switches, so not having the source code means that when something breaks, fixing it is somewhat more problematic than replacing a defective hardware switch. If you don't have the code, you have a really expensive flying Xbox that could quit working without warning and can't possibly be repaired.
You can't even replace busted hardware without the required software, because the hardware is all operated and tested via software. You can't just flip a switch to test the radar, because the switch is controlled by the computer which (should) report system status and troubleshooting data if it quits working.
A sensible approach would be to distribute an export version of the software, but I'm pretty sure that the original contract did not include parallel-but-equal lines of code development. To duplicate a multi-million-line codebase at this stage in the program would be cost prohibitive. You'd think they would have thought of this before... Like 15 years ago...
New consumer model then:
Rent or buy
Rip
Convert to a viewable format
Return to store, possibly with a complaint that the disc is incompatible
Burn compatible formatted version to dual layer DVD
Watch at own convenience on any device
!profit
Real world training can transfer to gaming to a certain extent, but there are considerations required for gaming that can't be gotten from real life experience. The user interface, small/distorted viewport looking through the monitor, and network transmission lag time all require game-specific reflexes and skills. For that reason, gaming skills don't transfer too well to real life either. The reflexes and priorities are simply tuned wrong.
I will say that a flight-sim gamer would do a lot better in a real aircraft than someone with no experience at all. But a real life fighter pilot is going to romp all over a gaming "ace" simply due to the depth of real life considerations that he's learned to deal with, such as the demanding physical environment. As with anything, some people are "naturals" and for these few people, flightsims are just another dynamic experience that will transfer to anything they do, from flying to playing golf. But for most people, there is no substitute for actual flight time.
The best book I can think of for a gaming simmer is Robert Shaw's "Figher Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering". I think it's still in limited print, otherwise you should be able to easily find a used copy on Amazon or wherever. It's a bit dated where it comes to modern jet combat, but if you can handle the level of detail it's probably the best introduction to aerial combat you'll find anywhere outside of a secure military location. The list of sources is worth just as much as the book itself, and if I recall correctly (I read Shaw's book at around age 14 in high school) you could probably find enough reading material referenced in this one book to keep you busy for a couple of years.
If you want to get really "good at flight sims", check out Aces High 2 at http://www.hitechcreations.com/ You won't find a better place to improve flightsim skills against real opponents than in the AH arenas. Yea there's a monthly fee to use the full arenas, but their head 2 head arenas and software are free if you just want to check it out without subscribing.
I flew fighters and primary trainers (up to 6.5 G's in the trainers) for 6 years with a herniated L5-S1 disc, and I'm not the only one who made the choice to ignore a medical problem to keep flying. 3 months post-surgery, I was back instructing and 4 months after that I was back in fighters.
Does that count?
It takes a certain amount of aggressiveness and arrogance to be a fighter pilot, but we're not all pegged at the far end of the scale. And arrogance does not always go along with aggressiveness. We simply MUST be aggressive when it is appropriate to be aggressive, because we'll be dead or won't accomplish our mission if we're not. And there is a VERY fine line between having the confidence in your abilities necessary to do our job, and being an arrogant asshole.
As I said before, we've all been through a rigorous selection process that emphasizes competence and harshly screens out weakness, because in our line of business the weak and/or incompetent die fast.
I won't compare it to other tough jobs, but it is very stressful. A 12 hour work day is standard when flying due to 12 hour off-duty rest requirements prior to the next flight (leaving 12 hours to work, right?) and since we're so macho, anyone griping about the work is laughed at so the work pretty much builds to completely fill our day. It's not uncommon to arrive at work at 0400 in the morning and go home at 8 pm that night if you're not flying the next day, otherwise you leave work 12 hours before you have to be at work the next day.
Add on the death/destruction nature of the work, having close friends of yours get splattered from hitting the ground at 600 knots following as little as 4 seconds of inattention, 4 or more months away from home every year, moving your family to the other side of the world every 2 or 3 years, and the stress/strain adds up.
On top of that, the fact that a fighter pilot is the end result of a series of selection processes means that everyone we work with has been at the top of almost every competitive endeavor they've ever tried in their entire life. A quick example, is my career. And I'm not even all that good...
These numbers are by memory, so some of them may be a bit off. But the order of magnitude will be correct...
The year I went to the USAF Academy, there were around 250,000 inquiries. Of those, there were around 50,000 people who met the minimum entrance requirements. Of those, 10,000 were highly qualified. Of those, approx 1,600 were accepted. By the time I graduated, fully 1/3 of my class had quit or washed out. Of the 1000 graduates in my class, approx 800 were medically qualified for pilot training, but due to post-cold war drawdowns, there were only 225 pilot training slots. So just in getting my pilot training slot, I was one of 225 selected from a pool of over 350,000 potential applicants.
At pilot training, my class had 32 students. Of those 32, only 6 went to the fighter/bomber track. Of those 6, only 4 got fighters.
Not trying to beat my chest, but I'm trying to get across the point that not only is uncompromising drive for excellence and actual job competence a requirement, everyone else I work with has these same values and to some degree, if we want to get promoted then we must somehow stand out from our peers. That's easier for some people than others, and frankly sometimes it seems like I struggle just to keep up with everyone else just because everyone else is so damn good.
I won't dig too deep into the remaining sources of stress, except to mention that our primary job, that of being a fighter pilot, is extremely difficult and complex. Technology, tactics, and threats are constantly changing and failing to keep up results in getting killed, getting your wingman killed, not hitting your target or worse, killing the wrong people when employing weapons. I fully understand that the guy changing the oil in my car may have just as much pride in his job as anyone else, but nobody's going to get killed if he can't recite the molecular composition of every major brand of oil on the market or describe in detail the construction methods used to make an oil filter. You can bet that (as one small example) needing to memorize the tactical capabilities and limitations of around 100 enemy weapons systems is going to be a source of stress.
A quick note about medical issues - I estimate up to 20% of pilots I've flown with have serious but undiagnosed back injuries. They are undiagnosed because as soon as you tell the doc about them, you're grounded. I flew on a herniated L5-S1 disc for 6 years before the pain crippled me and I had to go to the doc to get it fixed. I
I gave up a great programming job in 1990 that would pay me as an intern through college and then hire full time on graduation at over $35,000 entry level, not bad back in 1990. 10 years later, I passed up an opportunity to transition to an airline job that would pay in excess of $120,000/year after 3 years in the company. I married a doctor 3 years ago and if I quit my job today, she could join a private practice and make well over $350,000 per year while I kicked it doing... well, anything really.
What job has led me to make these financially retarded career moves?
I'm a USAF fighter pilot.
Woot.
It's a shameless plug, but check with my bro. andy at andylong dot org. He's just starting up and only has a few clients, but he's totally customer oriented and will meet any budget to keep a good client.
Here's a sample of something he's done recently:
http://www.prescottregulators.com/
Again, it's a shameless plug but he could use a few more clients and you won't find a better price.
Wasn't this called Prodigy a dozen years back? Or maybe it was AOL? Or Genie? Anyone remember why those services were surpassed by adoption of the "raw" internet as somehow more desirable than these tailored sandbox-safe services? When the "raw" internet became usable to the average person?
Unless google has some compelling service that can't be had on the internet, any restrictive service won't work. And if they do put up a compelling service, it's only a matter of time before the geek/guru/wizard types among us put those service onto the internet for everyone to use.
Marketing question - would anyone pay for fiber to their home at ANY price point, if the only content was the modern equivalent of mid-90's AOL specific services? I wouldn't...
How about instead of merely discarding submissions, have a few rejection options that would provide general feedback to the submitter?
1. Rejected - no comment
2. Rejected - not interesting
3. Rejected - poorly formatted
4. Rejected - flamebait/troll
5. Rejected - abusive
Might help improve the quality of the submissions so you're not relying on problem contributors.
Mr insult man,
Nvidia is an EXAMPLE. If you had the reading comprehension of a snail, you'd see the point I was making is that it's important to do the research BEFORE buying. Duh. The thread parent specifically mentioned that he knew nothing about video cards, he bought a $50 "upgrade", and then it wouldn't do what he wanted it to do.
Well no shit. Buying random crap and putting it into your computer, then blaming the manufacturer because you didn't read the specs and match it to the hardware compatability list, is stupid.
But you're obviously intent on finding something to flame instead of adding anything to the discussion... People like you, self-important tards with a narrow outlook on how things must be done, are a clear example of why some people have problems getting their computers to work. Your advice is worth shit unless everything is done your way, because you're too narrow minded to realize that there are mroe flexible options out there.
Yes, if he is only ever going to run FC, and FC doesn't work with ANY nvidia hardware (unlikely unless you're stupid and don't know how to do anything), then an nvidia purchase is a bad idea. But that gets to my point - do the research FIRST instead of buying cheap incompatible hardware and bitching about it.
But you'd rather flame, so go ahead. Tard.
The point is still valid, even for non-gamers. The fact is that driver development focuses on newer hardware, and the $50 price point is "low end" regardless of whether you're a gamer or not.
As for Linux, what's so unusual about getting a decent video card for linux? Many distributions offer accelerated drivers that take advantage of newer video chips, and buying a better video card can also get you an overall better image even in regular 2D and text useage. My 6800GT looks pretty good in Linux, gives me all sorts of options, has great hardware acceleration with the right drivers which makes the entire computer feel snappier, and normal text looks great at very high resolutions and refresh rates. A cheap video card will often fuzz out or bog down at high resolutions, color depths, and refresh rates.
In high school and college I was on a pretty strict budget and was forced to buy less expensive hardware, but at least I did the minimum amount of research to find out which video card chipset met my needs instead of buying a card and then griping when it wouldn't do what I wanted it to do. I checked the hardware compatibility lists, looked for standard configs, checked chipset features, found out (for example) if slackware used the acceleration features on the cirrus logic cl 5424 chips, etc. And only twice in 14 years of buying computer hardware have I been disappointed in a video card purchase.
Hell, when you use a computer, what 4 components get 99% of your attention? The keyboard, mouse, monitor, and video card feeding the signal to the monitor. Why ignore or go cheap on the one part that generates the image you're looking at? Yea if you're only using text consoles or building a server, then get the lowest price and lowest power consumption part you can find. But if you're using any kind of graphical interface, it pays to do the research on the parts even if you're buying at the low-end for a computer that doesn't run windows and isn't being used for gaming.
Not doing the research and buying the specific features you want is just plain retarded. You may as well toss your money in the trash, because at the low end you can still find video cards using chipsets designed 10 years ago. There is no excuse for being suprised that your computer hardware is not up to any particular task, because the info is out there if you spend just a little time looking it up.
The only reason I even mention gaming and video cards is because the best hardware reviews are usually done by gamers or other "enthusiast" web sites. Most non-enthusiast sites just parrot what the manufacturer has to say, but an enthusiast site, whether it's a PVR, linux, gaming, programming, photography, CAD, or whatever site, is more likely to take the time to really dig into the feature set and explain what cards are good for what tasks.
Again, at the $100 price point you're a hell of a lot more likely to get a card that uses reasonably modern technology, has current drivers, will work with every software package out there, and will produce a crisp image on your monitor. That has little to do with gaming, and the mystical "price/performance" line that the original post mentions is around $150-$200 for games anyhow. Around $100 gets you a relatively new, high quality part, that you won't be bitching about the day after you install it. Heck, you can even get low-end VIVO at the $100 price point.
Too expensive anyhow? Mow a couple of lawns, quit smoking, or drink less beer. Worked for me... Not buying beer/smokes in college let me save $40/month more than some of my friends, and as a result I was able to build a nice economical snappy linux box that was almost as quick as the workstations in the school computer lab. So instead of walking thru the snow to the computer lab, I could connect from my dorm room and do my work without having to change out of my jammies.
You had problems because you bought the $50 price point. Those cards are usually based on years-old designs, are not tested with the latest drivers and games, and may not be any better than the onboard graphics solution. You would have had a lot better luck at the $100 to $150 point which typically uses current or just-previous designs, complete with up to date driver support that is tested to work with current games. Doing a little research and reading the hardware requirements for a game is well worth the time, and if you had done your homework you probably would have learned that the $50 card you were thinking about buying was not suitable for gaming.
I'll admit that the manufacturer is probably culpable for advertising that $50 card as an "upgrade" but you bought cheap and got cheap, so what did you expect?
The last good AGP cards are the Nvidia 6800 series and some ATI X800 cards. You should be able to find one for around $200 (6800GS or 6800GT) that will run games just fine for another couple of years. If you need more performance though, you're pretty much stuck getting a complete new system.
Now is actually not a bad time to get a new system, especially if you go with an AMD cpu. Every component is at a "mature" point in their lifecycle and that means you're not paying for bleeding edge tech, and you have a smaller chance of getting stuck with something that doesn't quite work right. Athlon 64 cpus are fast and run relatively cool, socket 939 nforce4 motherboards are inexpensive and have a very wide range of features from bare-bones to premium boards with high quality onboard sound, dual gigabit lan, firewire, etc., pci-e video cards are available from under $100 to over $500, and SATA hard drives are fast and cheaper per gigabyte than ever before. DDR memory is readily available and cheap (2 gig of high quality PC3200 can be had for under $150), dual layer DVD burners are under $80, and both CRT and LCD displays are very affordable.
So there is no technological reason to NOT buy a complete system refresh right now. You'll always get something better/faster/cheaper if you can wait, but if you're unsatisfied with what you have NOW and there is no reasonable minor upgrade path that will satisfy your needs, then there is no non-financial reason to not do a total refresh now.
Like others have said, check out the system guides at http://www.anandtech.com/. http://www.hardocp.com/ also has hardware reviews from a gaming perspective. An Athlon 64 3700+ matched to an ASUS A8N Deluxe, with an Nvidia 7800GT and 2x1 gig sticks of PC3200 memory would make the foundation for a very nice multi-purpose computer that would also be a great gaming machine. You should be able to part together a very nice rig for under $1200, using very fast but completely mature components.
Won't this mess up the natural mixing currents that already go on? The global warming crowd is convinced that the ocean's natural mixing patterns are being disrupted and this will cause unpredictable climate changes and they have some data to back up their statements that a previously stable system is being disrupted, but now people are talking about deliberate disruption of the temperature gradiants and thermocline?
It really does not sound responsible to me. We're already tampering with the climate and simply don't know what the real effect is from any particular human activity, but we ought to be able to anticipate that transferring energy from one side of the thermocline to the other is going to cause at least a local disruption in a natural system.
Just because it doesn't burn fossil fuels doesn't automatically make it a good idea...
The discussion about requiring a pilots license with instrument rating is pretty detailed in the proposal, and you're right that it's going to be a hot issue. The proposal goes back and forth about the merits of requiring a pilots license and instrument rating vs. requiring that the space pilot applicant demonstrate competence in some other fashion, and I think that for the purposes of this initial and temporary set of regulations, requiring a pilots license and instrument rating is probably the best/cheapest/least intrusive option.
The logic used in the proposal is that regardless of the nature of the spacecraft, winged or not, powered or not, piloting it will undoubtedly require knowledge of the national airspace system and the ability to perform piloting tasks under disorienting conditions by reference to instruments alone. The closest formal certification process in existence that mirrors those basic skills is a pilots license with instrument rating.
The other side of the coin is that in the absence of this requirement, a spaceflight applicant would be required to demonstrate competency. But how would they do so to the satisfaction of an FAA examiner? Even ignoring the fact that each spaceship will be different and require a different knowledge/skill set, except for a few multi-million dollar simulators owned by NASA, there are no certified spaceship simulators on the planet. So the process of certifying a spaceship pilot would begin with FAA certification and approval of a sufficiently realistic and equivalent simulator and examination process. My guess is that this requirement alone would be cost prohibitive. How could an applicant with no current aeronautic certifications or qualifications prove that he is competent without demonstrating many hours of performance under sufficiently demanding circumstances, including emergency procedures training and profiency? And the applicant would still have to be knowledgable enough of the national airspace system to pass a competency exam, which would require some sort of ground school academic course.
In the face of the challenges involved in creating a new spaceship pilot rating without any historical (civilian) background to give perspective and insight into what skills are actually required, it seems only logical to follow the two-step requirement outlined in the proposal. The pilot must have a pilots license and instrument rating which ensures a specific skillset is already in place, plus there must be a demonstrated effort to be competent in the spacecraft to be utilized. No spacecraft pilot performance standards can be set without knowing what is going to really be required, until there is some data to dig through. This way, everyone benefits at the lowest price point possible.
In a decade or two, I expect we'll see a new set of pilots license categories, including specific types such as powered and unpowered winged spaceflight, vertical landing (also powered and unpowered), with modifiers for ballistic, lift-aided, ground launch, or air-launch takeoffs. I don't think there's enough data or enough time to come up with the standards before it's time to authorize more launches and commercial operation however, so as an interim fix I think they're on the right path.
Those griping about the proposed licencing requirements ought to be careful what they ask for, because if they get it they'll probably be far less happy with the regulatory alternative.
As a USAF pilot and mild space enthusiast, much of the proposal sounds very well thought out. The discussion points about topics such as licensing and qualification requirements and medical standards show that they have considered numerous alternatives and are interested in creating regulations that enhance safety and protect the public, without placing unnecessary burdens on companies, crews, and passengers wishing to participate in spaceflight.
Plus they're actively asking for input, and discuss input they've already received.
It really looks like a good faith effort to allow reasonable spaceflight efforts, with an eye on public safety.
I thought it telling that right away, they list "citizen explorers" as a category of people who will be conducting spaceflights under these regulations. They're specifically addressing the understanding that this will be a risky business that should still be allowed and encouraged.
Lots of blah blah comments so far including one tard griping about the pdf document format (get a life dude), but very few have bothered to read any of the proposal. I recommend taking the time to at least browse through it... I think it will be educational.
Use a pencil and go to jail for tax evasion?
I can see the headlines now...
U.S. leads world in new woodlands increases that cause global warming - Largest increase in history under President Bush!
I've carried the 9mm (USAF) in a combat zone and it's the source of many jokes. It is a weak round with limited stopping or penetrating power. I am also not given the option to use/carry any other weapon on duty. In Desert Storm, many USAF pilots brought their own more powerful weapons with them because the 9mm round sucks, but they've tightened down the rules since then.
.40 cal. It has the exact same dimensions as the 9mm but the .40cal round has a lot more stopping power. But I wouldn't be allowed to take it with me to Iraq. Special forces and other troops with specific requirements are authorized alternative weapons, but for the average troop you get an M-16 variant or the 9mm Beretta.
I own the same beretta used by the military, but chambered in
I know someone who jokes that the only thing the 9mm is good for is convincing someone nearby to give up their M-16 (haha). Realistically, the usual plan is if they're stuck with only the 9mm pistol for some reason, just keep it in the holster because it identifies them as an officer, and pick up whatever else gets dropped by the first casualties. If that means picking up an AK or whatever the enemy is using, that's fine too.