It makes no sense to use a simulated nuke shape that actually has a radioactive, dangerous, and expensive restricted component when it can easily be simulated by replacing it with a safe, inert, and cheap substance.
It makes sense if you have an inventory of hundreds of these weapons and you want to keep their specifications a secret.
A few questions for you. Who would build this "dummy" bomb? What would it be made of to keep the same size, weight, and shape? How far would someone want to deviate from the real thing in training or testing when considering that the success or failure could mean lives lost?
I'll answer the last question first, when doing testing like this they'd want to have something as real as possible since this is a matter of survival for future flight crews. To make this they'd want to use as much of the real deal material to keep the mission as close to a real deal mission as possible. The people that make the dummy would have to be the same people that make the real weapons for matters of security, and they will have access to the real stuff to make it.
My guess is that this "dummy" was one of two kinds of devices. It may have been a real deal bomb with all the important parts removed for the mission. The core was not likely on board, and if there was a core it would likely be a dummy device since the weight difference of that is not near as critical as the 5 ton case. It may also have been a "dummy" bomb in the sense it was a real bomb that failed during the inspection to certify it as a weapon fit for the inventory. It'd be stripped down of anything critical and be inert in many but not all respects. It'd still have to be guarded as a real weapon since in the hands of an enemy it could be used for all kinds of mayhem. Since it still matched the fit/form/function in many respects compared to a functional weapon it would be kept for missions like this one.
If you want to see something "expensive" then consider the expense of designing, producing, and testing, a handful of "dummy" weapons when there is an ample inventory of the real thing. When it comes to being radioactive consider that depleted uranium has a half life of billions of years, emits an alpha particle upon decay (which is easily blocked with a piece of paper), and is covered by the heavy steel casing. And then calling this "dangerous"? Of course it's dangerous. It's 5 tons and covered with steel armor, this is not something to be handled, ahem... "lightly". A simulation device would have to also weigh 5 tons and be covered with steel armor or the training mission is pointless.
So this highly radioactive core is still at the bottom of the ocean somewhere?
If this was in fact a training mission then the radioactive core would not likely be on board. That is a very expensive and militarily sensitive part of the weapon. The rest of the weapon, the nearly 5 ton case, while still an expensive and sensitive piece of equipment is not nearly as easily lost, stolen, or capable of being simulated for a training mission.
Also, the plutonium used in the core has a half life of over 24000 years, not something many would consider "highly radioactive". Such material is regularly handled with only gloved hands, which is what the crew would have to do to arm the weapon while in flight.
My question isn't why it would be packed with uranium, since uranium is rather unique in it's density and there is little else that would be of equivalent density and be as cheap. My question is, why would a dummy bomb be packed with TNT?
If it's packed with TNT then it is most certainly a live bomb. It might not be a nuclear weapon at this point but it can still "go boom" with considerable force if given a cross look.
As I understand nuclear weapon design the use of DU as a casing is beneficial for two reasons. First, it can provide enough mass to contain the force of the TNT explosive long enough to detonate the "pit" (nuclear primary) and not be too large to carry in a bomber. Second, even DU will fission if exposed to a "fast" neutron flux (where "fast" is defined by nuclear physics and in abundance during fission). This makes a nuclear weapon small, powerful, and "light" by 1950s weapons standards.
The presence of DU in a "dummy" nuclear weapon makes sense to me since it is a near requisite to make a proper stand-in for a real weapon without needing exceedingly exotic (for the military anyway) materials. TNT on the other hand is not terribly unique in the same way. I don't know how dense TNT is but I would imagine there are a lot of off the shelf stuff that would be close in density, chemical composition, etc. and still not "go boom" if in an aircraft crash or something.
I recall a quote that is perhaps falsely attributed to Henry Ford and it's something like, "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse." Ethernet does what it does because of it was made within the confines of the needs of a particular base of users. This is a different need and instead of creating a "faster horse" that might break the standard, cause incompatibilities, and other problems I believe they should simply start over with something new, a spec that wouldn't try to fit in the confines that may no longer apply.
I think that if they want to extend a standard to get a time sensitive network then they should look at something besides Ethernet. Firewire comes to mind, it's a standard that had time sensitivity from the start. Other possible standards could be USB-C, PCIe/ThunderBolt, or even extending some A/V protocol like DisplayPort or HDMI. I recall a certain protocol used in aircraft for sending critical data but the name escapes me at the moment, use that.
Maybe "faster horse" isn't the right analogy but instead call it a "camel", a horse designed by committee.
Uranium makes for a very poor choice as a dirty weapon. Uranium is a toxic metal, so don't eat it, but it is not a radiation hazard. People tasked with handling it will have gloves, a mask, goggle, and maybe a rubber suit. Usually this is because they have to protect the uranium from the people. The uranium in a nuclear reactor or weapon must be very pure to work properly, a fingerprint or hair on the uranium fuel could prove to be dangerous to power plant workers, or merely expensive in fixing the reduced power output.
Depleted uranium ammunition is a hazard for people, because people tend to be the targets hit with them. The uranium dust kicked up from firing these DU shells is suspected to be the cause of many cases of Gulf War syndrome. Gulf War syndrome is likely the result of some combination of exposure to the DU dust, smoke from burning oil wells, traumatic brain injury, chemical weapons, and battle stress. Placing the blame on uranium poisoning alone has been difficult. An unarmed uranium bomb detonating it's TNT primary would spread uranium around but not in a kind of heavy dust seen from firing shells from an M1 tank or AC-130. It would be large chunks and any dust would settle in the outdoor air quickly and become nearly undetectable among the naturally occurring uranium in the ground.
A nuclear weapon without it's "pit" would be a similar hazard as an unexploded WWII era 2 ton bomb. This bunch of TNT wrapped in heavy metals is like handling a hand grenade the size of a refrigerator. Unless the bomb is near a populated area it's just best to cordon off the area and leave it to rust. If it did detonate it would not be a dirty bomb, but it would leave a good sized crater and potentially kill anyone within perhaps a mile of it from the resulting shrapnel.
Technically, a uranium tamper is still fissioned with fast neutron flux, so it is partly there for its nuclear properties, isn't it?
That's my understanding as well. It's the choice of materials for this outer casing that, as far as I can tell, is what separates a high yield three stage device (uranium), a low or medium yield two stage device (lead or steel), and enhanced radiation weapons (AKA a neutron bomb or salted bomb, using some other material).
I stated "that we haven't seen any real warming for two decades" which will not show on those graphs because they use different time scales. If man made CO2 is the cause of global warming then we'd have seen warming during the time in which the CO2 concentration has been highest, in the last 20 years.
People can show warming or cooling by cherry picking a starting point in the historical temperature data. I noticed a lot of charts will start in the 1940s, because temps were cooling before then. The temp in 1934 was higher than 1998. I've seen charts start in 1975 or so, because temps cooled before then too.
Humans have lived through a lot of warming and cooling but we didn't burn oil or coal in any significant quantity until the Industrial Revolution. Even after that time we saw a few warming and cooling periods. Putting any blame on humans for warming since that time should also mean giving us credit for any cooling, no?
We've seen cooling in global temps since 1998. The AGW types won't give credit to humans for this, even though humans have done so much to reduce CO2 emissions. But no, people bad, nature good.
I think I realized why these types are called "tree huggers", because if they embraced just about any other living thing they'd be injured or dead. Go hug some poison oak, a cactus, or a hornets nest. Give give a big ol' bear hug to an actual bear. At some point in giving the bear a hug your carbon cycle will complete and no one has to worry about your carbon foot print ever again.
This is not news to people that have paid attention to the science of global warming. As much as the AGW alarmists scream about "science" you'd think that they'd stop screaming once in a while and do some actual science. But then if they had then they wouldn't be AGW alarmists.
The correlation between plant growth and CO2 concentration is not news to anyone that has even minimal knowledge of biology. CO2 is plant food, if you make more food available to them they tend to grow faster, stronger, and higher. It should be only a small leap in logic that natural plant growth will place a limit on the speed in which CO2 concentrations can grow and how high those concentrations can get.
What is finally making the AGW types pay attention to the science is that we haven't seen any real warming for two decades. What we'll see next is some articles about scientists noticed that the recent sea level rise has been happening for a very long time and at a rate that has been relatively constant for centuries.
I will stop just short of calling AGW a hoax because everyone involved knows very little on how the climate works. What I am quite certain about is that people have been using AGW as an excuse to grow government power and/or personally enrich themselves with "fixes" to AGW that are hoaxes.
A bad car analogy is having car troubles and focusing on only the left rear tire valve stem. With all the complexities to the climate it is madness to attribute any climate changes to only CO2 produced from human fossil fuel consumption. It is then further madness to not recognize the natural systems that have kept this system stable for so long and how that might interact with that increased CO2 output.
If IMDB loses this because it has the "scent of extortion" then I expect IMDB to respond within the law but also in a way to retaliate against those that want their ages hidden. For example, IMDB can merely respond to any request of removing the age by removing the entire biography page. IMDB is not obligated to provide these people with free advertising, just give them a choice, a complete bio which includes their age, no bio, or pay for a customized bio page. Or even make it simpler, no bio page or pay to have one created.
This is a bunch of bullshit, the argument for the removal of ages is to fight "subconscious", "inherent", or "inadvertent" agism. If they have a claim of demonstrable agism then go fight that. We cannot fight against something when we cannot even prove it exists.
I'm reminded of the crybullies that want transgendered actors to play transgendered roles when it was likely these same people that fought to keep an actor's status as gay, transgendered, etc. secret from the people recruiting them. Also, acting is about people pretending to be someone that they are not. Should it be illegal for an actor to portray a police officer in a movie unless they have actually attended a government police academy? If they didn't go to an academy they they aren't actually police officers, right? Gay actors have played straight men and vice versa for a very long time but now for some reason its an issue.
My guess on why stupid shit like this is coming up is that society has become so free from prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism that people will actively seek it out and see it when its not there.
Having worked at one time for a company that sold telephone directories and online advertising I can see this from the IMDB perspective. When I worked at the ad company we would have free listings for businesses as a service to the people that bought the directories and as an incentive for paid advertising from the businesses. If a business called in with a correction to factual information, such as we had the wrong phone number listed, or we misspelled the business name, then we'd fix it for free. We did this for free because it added value to our products.
If a business wanted their address removed then we wouldn't do that for free because that is something people can figure out on their own from another source and not listing it devalues the product for people paying for the directory. If they want information removed then we'd only do so at a price to make up for the loss in value of our product. It also creates a disincentive for trivial changes to a business listing, changing a listing takes a person time to perform which costs money. Just having someone answer the phone or look at an e-mail costs the ad company money, if they want access to the people that will answer the phone quickly and cater to their whimsy on how their listings look then they should pay for it.
I don't see the problem with IMDB requiring a paid subscription to their service to remove the age from a person listed. A person's age is factual information, available from other sources, and changing an entry in their database takes time and money which IMDB should be compensated for to provide that service.
IMDB is a business and list the names, ages, roles performed, etc. at no cost to them. The information they list for free is factual information, available elsewhere, and by making the listing they are in effect giving these people free advertising for their work in the hope to entice them to pay for more services. IMDB will not give false information on behalf of these people, that is not only unethical but also many times illegal. What they can do though is make additions to a listing, or hide certain factual information, but only if someone pays for it because that is where the real costs come in.
However, I think you're silly to be skeptical of global warming.
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me on AGW so long as we can agree on solutions. I believe that we have bigger problems with importing oil than the carbon output, if we can agree on strategies that can reduce oil importation then I don't care what you think about AGW.
What I have found out is that burning plant matter for energy is demonstrably bad for the economy and bad for the environment. People need to eat and people eat plant matter. Burning plant matter is burning food. The whole idea of "agricultural waste" is laughable. Those corn stalks and soybean hulls that some people want to burn is wasteful. That plant matter is erosion control, nitrogen fixers, and all kinds of good for the soil. If we don't put that plant matter back in the fields then farmers have to use artificial fertilizers, the kind made from natural gas mostly, to make up for it.
Ethanol is a real bad idea too, I'd go into it but this post is long enough already. Any kind of bio-fuel is a bad idea except perhaps those that are dangerous to human health in some way, like sewage and medical waste, I'm not terribly opposed to burning that kind of material generally because we will often burn it anyway to dispose of it so we may as well derive energy from it.
I can get along with AGW people, just so long as they don't lobby for things that destroy the economy and my standard of living to "save" the planet. The planet is going to be fine, it will still be here even if the seas rise and ice caps melt, it's people we need to worry about.
We could save the trees for building material if we used nuclear power for heat instead. Of course we need heat but we don't need to burn wood, coal, or oil, to do it.
What we also see are AGW types that lobby against nuclear power as well. Some AGW types leave us in a corner of where we cannot burn fossil fuels, cannot use nuclear power, and so we are left with burning wood, which even then some are unhappy with. These kinds of AGW types are insane and cannot be reasoned with. The AGW types that advocate for nuclear power are at least reasonable since it leaves us with an "out" from returning to hunter gatherer society.
As you may have guesses I am skeptical of AGW but I will play along with the AGW theory so long as we can have nuclear power. No fossil fuels and no nuclear means living like cavemen or an environmental disaster as we fight over the last of the trees to cut down, and then we live like cavemen.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
What is just maddening to me is the trend for using wood for heat and energy. While I'm not sure that deforestation is really an issue I do understand that wood is a multipurpose crop (and it is a crop, just like corn or watermelons are a crop) and burning wood means less of it for building material, paper, and Parmesan cheese filler.
I've seen AGW believers get pilloried by their own for advocating that trees should be grown and used for building material to sequester carbon. I guess, somehow, it's better for the carbon cycle or something to burn those trees for heat.
I do agree that carbon taxes are a loser, both as public policy and as a means to reduce carbon output. As a policy people don't want to see their costs go up for fuel (vehicle and heat), electricity, and everything really since most every product we buy needs to be shipped, refrigerated, heated, and all of those processes take energy. As a means to reduce carbon output it fails because energy use is a largely inelastic demand. Even if prices for fuel go up people still need to eat, drive to work, use lights, and so on. It might keep people from taking a drive to visit Grandma but then it's less about reducing carbon and really sinking into quality of life, mobility (social and transportation), and just generally making life worse.
After something like 40 years of being told to "reduce, recycle, reuse" we are running into diminishing returns. We've cut all the fat and now we're cutting into bone here. Don't tell me I need to reduce my energy consumption, tell me that we are going to see some nuclear power plants built. Nuclear power will save the trees, provide inexpensive energy, and replace dirty coal.
I remember when I was in school, and working at the same time, I would not be able to afford a macbook pro, and requiring such an expensive machine seems counterproductive.
I've taken classes where the textbook costs a lot of money, sometimes an order of magnitude more than textbooks for other classes. Are you going to tell the instructor to require a cheaper textbook because it is "counterproductive"?
It sucks when an instructor requires expensive supplies for a course. If you don't like it then find a different instructor, a different course, or a different school. If you believe the instructor is an idiot for requiring a Mac to take the course then feel free to tell the instructor he/she is an idiot and drop the course.
Besides the instructor should not be providing basic computer operation support and hand holding when your using specific software.
In order to avoid the instructor having to provide basic computer support all students should be using the same operating system and the same software. If the instructor says hit Command-7 on the computer then every student should be able to find the Command key and not have to figure out of the equivalent is the Windows key, the Alt key, or if that macro even works on their system.
The instructor doesn't know how familiar the student is with computers, or a specific operating system, so they will simplify things to avoid the hand holding.
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
It's not meaningless because then Google doesn't have to take a hit to their brand when those cables, devices, whatever go up in smoke.
The point is that Google is looking out for Google, not that Google is looking out for some no-name maker of USB shit. Google wants happy customers, they do it by putting their name on quality stuff.
It's about Google protecting its brand. A device that uses Google's OS has a connection in the mind of the consumer. If a device associated with Google fails in some way (such as bursting into flames for not complying with the USB charging spec) then that reflects poorly on Google even though they had nothing to do with the hardware.
Bad car analogy time... Imagine if Ford bought Firestone tires for their trucks. Ford, out of a concern for performance of the truck, decides to lower the inflation pressure of the tires without telling Firestone of this change. If the tires blow out then this reflects badly on Firestone. Firestone followed all written specifications as defined by SAE, CAB, BBQ, and any other TLA that comes along. Firestone did nothing wrong and yet in the mind of the consumer there is a suspicion of some wrongdoing even if there is a government investigation that clears them. Ford takes a hit in consumer confidence too but they might not care as much because they can weather the hit by relying on the sale of the other brands they use (Mercury, Lincoln, Mazda, etc.) and consumers not knowing the relationship. Firestone, out of a desire to protect their brand, no longer sells tires to Ford.
A device manufacturer might make something that runs the Google OS as well as another OS but under a different brand. If this device goes up in flames because the USB charging spec wasn't followed then Google takes a hit in consumer confidence because the Google brand was on the device. The hardware maker might not care because they sold a bunch of stuff but their name wasn't on it. If the device goes up in smoke too many times then they will quietly discontinue that model and keep selling stuff with some other brand on it.
Google is reminding the device makers to follow the USB spec because bad things can happen if they don't. Google is enforcing this compliance with the spec with an implied threat to end doing business with them.
I hope that helps, I probably didn't explain it well.
The iMac I refer to was purchased in 1999, it was a "blueberry" model to give an idea of its age. The printer was bought shortly after, also blue colored. When the computer died years later the printer was no longer supported and no updated drivers existed. It was a cheap USB inkjet printer, not something you'd see supporting PostScript or PCL.
The computer that replaced the iMac had Windows on it. So we were trying to print on a cheap five year old printer, designed for a Mac, from Windows. We found drivers that sort of worked but it would jam up the printer every so often. We eventually gave up and bought a laser printer. This thing had it all, or so we thought. It supported PCL, IP printing, all kinds of stuff. We thought we were done. What it did not support was AirPrint, because that came out shortly after that printer was made.
When Mom got the iPad it could not find the printer because the printer didn't speak AirPrint. Again the printer is now about five years old and so the printing from an iOS device was not supported. We thought we had it figured out, we would just install Linux on the laptop and use it to share the printer. Well Linux keep losing track of the printer for some reason and the Linux drivers were crap. I bought a new printer that supported AirPrint and traded it for hers, I have the printer now and it works fine on Windows and MacOS. Mom is happy because she can print the coupons she gets by e-mail from the iPad.
It's not like we bought a pile of computers and printers. It was iMac first, then laptop, and now iPad. The first printer was a cheap inkjet, then a laser printer, and then a newer laser printer. This resulted in continued headaches as each new device was purchased because we didn't learn our lesson from the first time we fought with the printer.
The first printer was an Epson, as I recall, which maybe was "shit" as you say. The other two were Brother brand, which is not "shit". They were all nice printers and worked well for well beyond the time the drivers were updated by the manufacturer. I have a Brother printer that's been working fine for nearly 20 years. I only replaced it with the printer Mom had because I got fed up with Windows 10 freaking out over the old drivers.
Apple is only able to charge a premium because they have worked for decades to build up a mystique around their brand.
Question for you, how did Apple create this "mystique"?
I remember someone telling me he'd never buy a John Deere because he wasn't going to "buy a bunch of green paint" when he could get another tractor cheaper. Having grown up on a farm we learned the value of that "green paint" firsthand. You've heard the phrase "making hay while the sun shines"? Well it is hard to make hay if the baler is broken down. You can't fake "mystique" for decades. There has to be something real behind it because people figure that out real quick. This is sometimes a lesson learned the hard way, like seeing your crop get washed away in a hard rain because it wasn't baled up in time.
Having been an engineer and IT geek for years now I learned the value of that "Apple premium" firsthand as well. Apple makes good equipment, that is why they can charge a premium.
now how many other schools require their students to buy only mac, with the 30 year old notion that mac's are better at graphics and or music or whatever else, just so they can run software that will easily run any other laptop?
I'd like to turn this around. How many colleges require their students to buy a Windows computer with the 30 year old notion that Apple makes only "toys" and to do "real work" you need to run Windows?
I've recently enrolled in college to update my skills after having graduated many years ago. In my classes so far I don't recall ever being told what kind of computer I should get. In the class notes I will usually see how to run whatever software we are using on Windows and Linux, with the Mac users often left to figure it out on their own. What is odd is that when looking around the classroom at what kind of computers students bring to class I do see a lot of Apple laptops. The instructors seem to be ignorant of Macs but the students seem to figure out how to make them work in class.
There seemed to be an open hostility to Apple computers way back when I studied engineering and this seems to remain today. You point out yourself that Macs can run most any software just as well as any other computer, then why do you care that the students buy what the instructor recommends for the class?
I believe I know why the instructors require their students to use a particular kind of computer, the answer is because it makes their job easier. If a student is stuck on something and has a question and the student is using a system that the instructor is not familiar with then the instructor cannot help. The instructors cannot be bothered with learning how to use multiple operating systems for the convenience of the students. The students are presumably there to learn art, not computer skills. They are also presumably spending many thousands of dollars on tuition, books, materials, etc. and therefore the cost of the Mac should just be considered like any other supply needed for the classes.
I get the impression that you are charging the art schools with the crime of subsidizing Apple sales. Where I go to school the university has a contract with Microsoft to provide software to all students as part of their fees. There is a very real subsidy of Microsoft going on at my school. This might even explain the popularity of Apples on campus. If a student bought, for example, a Dell laptop then they could only run Windows. If a student bought an Apple then they can download Windows for "free" from the university and install it so they can run both Mac OS and Windows, this would be a dual boot or a VM.
I'm not an art student but I do see an OS preference in the instructors. I have gone against the OS preference of the instructor before and it does make things more difficult. If the instructor sees an unfamiliar system then they will be less likely to help the student if there is a question. If you want to learn the course material then get the computer the instructor recommends. If you want to piss off your instructor then don't get the computer the instructor recommends.
I believe that at its heart Linux is a kernel upon which one can build whatever kind of OS they wish, including for desktops, servers, and tablets. The "hack" you refer to has, IMHO, more to do with X11 than anything else. The rest of what people think of as a "Linux operating system" is a collection of GPL and BSD services, utilities, and so forth that are usually equally suited to a server or desktop. With the widespread use of GPL and BSD software across Linux based, Apple, and Microsoft operating systems the difference, again IMHO, lies almost entirely on how the screen is driven. Under the hood we see a lot of the same protocols, services, and so forth that in many ways they are interchangeable any more.
Maybe it's my being "savvy" that is coloring my view but the compatibility issues you speak of seem to lie less with technical ignorance and more with being an inattentive shopper. If you want to, for example, keep printing issues to a minimum then make sure the printer supports the protocols and features that match well with your preferences and the capabilities of the devices you wish to print from. When buying electronics one should make sure that the cables and protocols match, there is not much need to know all about how they work just that they are compatible.
Long ago Mom got an iMac and a printer, they worked well for a long time. When the iMac died it was replaced with a Windows laptop. My brothers and I tried to resolve the printer issues with different drivers and settings but ultimately the printer was replaced and the issues went away. When Mom got an iPad her printer issues returned. Again my brothers and I tried to fix it various ways, including installing Linux on the laptop, but the problems went away with a new printer.
Training is certainly part of it, every time Mom got a new printer someone had to show her how it worked. We tried to fix the compatibility issues and reluctance to train (and spend money) on a new device with software and hardware hacks. In the end it was just so much easier to get the right hardware and software and train on how they work.
Your parents' complaints about not being able to run whatever software is, again IMHO, being an inattentive shopper. This applies to so many things. It's like shopping for a furnace filter, nuts and bolts, or clothing. If you aren't paying attention to the size, shape, and color when you buy then you are going to have a problem. You don't need to be a mechanic to buy car tires any more than you need to be a computer scientist to buy software, but you should know the make, model, and year of your car when you buy tires just like you should be aware of the OS, computer model, and available ports on your computer when you buy a device or software for it.
My mom has used Ubuntu on her laptop for a long time without issues but after getting her iPad the laptop has been used less and less. She would just rather carry the much lighter iPad than the heavier laptop.
I don't know, I'm not married. Sure, the diamonds are on the engagement rings I guess. A bit of internet research tells me that some cultures have the jewel on the engagement ring and others on the wedding ring, with a plain gold (or other noble metal) band for the other.
Now that I think about it my older brother gave his wife a diamond ring for engagement and the wedding bands were relatively plain gold bands.
Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on a ring is beyond me anyways. Take all of the money you would have spent and put it towards a house or if that's not an issue, spend it traveling. Experiences together are worth more than a piece of carbon.
There is a lot of societal momentum behind the diamond ring, or at least in the ring itself. People like wedding bands and even my very practical brothers got wedding bands. They bought a nice rock for the wife but they didn't, at least in my mind, go overboard on the expense. One brother, a mechanical engineer, got a wedding band made of titanium or something for himself, it's not gold and cost less than a nice dinner out.
You can try to do away with the ring but I believe you are going to have a lot of resistance, not just because of the De Beers money but because of society generally. Think of a replacement. Encourage people to just have gold bands, which as I recall predate the diamond ring anyway. I've seen people get tattoos instead, not a "I heart U" tattoo on their arm which I assume people have done, but instead a tattooed wedding band around the finger. Perhaps not as "forever" as a diamond or gold ring but it will be with the people for a time even after they die.
Your statements lead me to believe you are not married and likely don't know many married couples. Women want rings. Convincing a woman that diamonds are "bad" may be successful but they will want a ring. It might not be the symbol of wealth that they were before but they still are a symbol of fidelity. A gold band doesn't have to cost much but they are a part of our culture and your protestations won't rid us of them.
Hillary Clinton is an evil person. She left Americans, people under her employ, to die in Libya.
What did you expect her to do
I expected her to give a damn. I expected her to at least try to save those people.
The attack on September 11, 2012 should not have been a surprise and it turns out it was planned in advance. The people on site knew they were at risk and Clinton refused their requests for more security. Ever since 2001 the date of 9/11 is a time when terrorists like to carry out attacks on the USA. Clinton did not only refuse to give them more security in Libya when some security contracts ran out they were not renewed. The people there were at considerable risk.
When the attack did come the State Department knew about it within minutes. The attack went on for hours before the last of the people there died. The US military has quick response teams placed around hot spots like this to respond to attacks like this. There was a team ready and able to respond but the State Department refused to allow them to go. They had been fighting for SIX HOURS before the last of the security detail had been killed. A drone was already on site and delivering video of the attack minutes after they became aware of a possible terrorist attack.
I don't know where the US Navy had carrier groups at the time but those F-18 Hornets can haul ass if asked to. At a minimum Clinton could have sent some of these fast movers to fly overhead to put a little fear in the hearts of the attackers. I recall reading that the security detail on site had laser designators for guided weapons, they knew where the mortars were coming from and they had them lit up. It is quite possible that the F-18s could have destroyed those mortars before the American security detail was overrun. Helicopters don't move as fast as F-18s but they can carry troops and weapons, and more importantly they can go just about anywhere to take people away. While the F-18s were flying overhead with full afterburners, to disorient the attackers with sonic booms, the helicopters could have been en route to pull those American lives out of there. Even if the people there were dead by the time they arrived we could at least say we tried. Also, by sending a QRT we'd also have people on site to protect valuable documents there and potentially find the people responsible for the attack.
That's what Clinton could have done that day, but instead she left them to die.
Again, this was an attack that was potentially foreseeable for days or weeks in advance. If Clinton was doing her job then we'd likely have had proper security on site from the start and the attack might never have happened. It's a common tactic for the State Department and the US military to put a couple M1 tanks in front of valuable assets in sketchy areas. That tends to deter attacks. Even if someone is stupid enough to start shooting on a building guarded by tanks then at least the tanks are there to return fire and soak up some of the damage. I'm sure it is possible these people would be just as dead if there were tanks on site, and a quick response team was on the way to reinforce them but, again, at least we could have said we tried. Clinton didn't try. She was either oblivious, didn't care, or was so mentally addled from her many falls that she couldn't think straight.
What did I expect her to do? I expected her to try.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes no sense to use a simulated nuke shape that actually has a radioactive, dangerous, and expensive restricted component when it can easily be simulated by replacing it with a safe, inert, and cheap substance.
It makes sense if you have an inventory of hundreds of these weapons and you want to keep their specifications a secret.
A few questions for you. Who would build this "dummy" bomb? What would it be made of to keep the same size, weight, and shape? How far would someone want to deviate from the real thing in training or testing when considering that the success or failure could mean lives lost?
I'll answer the last question first, when doing testing like this they'd want to have something as real as possible since this is a matter of survival for future flight crews. To make this they'd want to use as much of the real deal material to keep the mission as close to a real deal mission as possible. The people that make the dummy would have to be the same people that make the real weapons for matters of security, and they will have access to the real stuff to make it.
My guess is that this "dummy" was one of two kinds of devices. It may have been a real deal bomb with all the important parts removed for the mission. The core was not likely on board, and if there was a core it would likely be a dummy device since the weight difference of that is not near as critical as the 5 ton case. It may also have been a "dummy" bomb in the sense it was a real bomb that failed during the inspection to certify it as a weapon fit for the inventory. It'd be stripped down of anything critical and be inert in many but not all respects. It'd still have to be guarded as a real weapon since in the hands of an enemy it could be used for all kinds of mayhem. Since it still matched the fit/form/function in many respects compared to a functional weapon it would be kept for missions like this one.
If you want to see something "expensive" then consider the expense of designing, producing, and testing, a handful of "dummy" weapons when there is an ample inventory of the real thing. When it comes to being radioactive consider that depleted uranium has a half life of billions of years, emits an alpha particle upon decay (which is easily blocked with a piece of paper), and is covered by the heavy steel casing. And then calling this "dangerous"? Of course it's dangerous. It's 5 tons and covered with steel armor, this is not something to be handled, ahem... "lightly". A simulation device would have to also weigh 5 tons and be covered with steel armor or the training mission is pointless.
So this highly radioactive core is still at the bottom of the ocean somewhere?
If this was in fact a training mission then the radioactive core would not likely be on board. That is a very expensive and militarily sensitive part of the weapon. The rest of the weapon, the nearly 5 ton case, while still an expensive and sensitive piece of equipment is not nearly as easily lost, stolen, or capable of being simulated for a training mission.
Also, the plutonium used in the core has a half life of over 24000 years, not something many would consider "highly radioactive". Such material is regularly handled with only gloved hands, which is what the crew would have to do to arm the weapon while in flight.
Depleted uranium is still toxic, though.
And lead isn't?
My question isn't why it would be packed with uranium, since uranium is rather unique in it's density and there is little else that would be of equivalent density and be as cheap. My question is, why would a dummy bomb be packed with TNT?
If it's packed with TNT then it is most certainly a live bomb. It might not be a nuclear weapon at this point but it can still "go boom" with considerable force if given a cross look.
As I understand nuclear weapon design the use of DU as a casing is beneficial for two reasons. First, it can provide enough mass to contain the force of the TNT explosive long enough to detonate the "pit" (nuclear primary) and not be too large to carry in a bomber. Second, even DU will fission if exposed to a "fast" neutron flux (where "fast" is defined by nuclear physics and in abundance during fission). This makes a nuclear weapon small, powerful, and "light" by 1950s weapons standards.
The presence of DU in a "dummy" nuclear weapon makes sense to me since it is a near requisite to make a proper stand-in for a real weapon without needing exceedingly exotic (for the military anyway) materials. TNT on the other hand is not terribly unique in the same way. I don't know how dense TNT is but I would imagine there are a lot of off the shelf stuff that would be close in density, chemical composition, etc. and still not "go boom" if in an aircraft crash or something.
I recall a quote that is perhaps falsely attributed to Henry Ford and it's something like, "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse." Ethernet does what it does because of it was made within the confines of the needs of a particular base of users. This is a different need and instead of creating a "faster horse" that might break the standard, cause incompatibilities, and other problems I believe they should simply start over with something new, a spec that wouldn't try to fit in the confines that may no longer apply.
I think that if they want to extend a standard to get a time sensitive network then they should look at something besides Ethernet. Firewire comes to mind, it's a standard that had time sensitivity from the start. Other possible standards could be USB-C, PCIe/ThunderBolt, or even extending some A/V protocol like DisplayPort or HDMI. I recall a certain protocol used in aircraft for sending critical data but the name escapes me at the moment, use that.
Maybe "faster horse" isn't the right analogy but instead call it a "camel", a horse designed by committee.
Uranium makes for a very poor choice as a dirty weapon. Uranium is a toxic metal, so don't eat it, but it is not a radiation hazard. People tasked with handling it will have gloves, a mask, goggle, and maybe a rubber suit. Usually this is because they have to protect the uranium from the people. The uranium in a nuclear reactor or weapon must be very pure to work properly, a fingerprint or hair on the uranium fuel could prove to be dangerous to power plant workers, or merely expensive in fixing the reduced power output.
Depleted uranium ammunition is a hazard for people, because people tend to be the targets hit with them. The uranium dust kicked up from firing these DU shells is suspected to be the cause of many cases of Gulf War syndrome. Gulf War syndrome is likely the result of some combination of exposure to the DU dust, smoke from burning oil wells, traumatic brain injury, chemical weapons, and battle stress. Placing the blame on uranium poisoning alone has been difficult. An unarmed uranium bomb detonating it's TNT primary would spread uranium around but not in a kind of heavy dust seen from firing shells from an M1 tank or AC-130. It would be large chunks and any dust would settle in the outdoor air quickly and become nearly undetectable among the naturally occurring uranium in the ground.
A nuclear weapon without it's "pit" would be a similar hazard as an unexploded WWII era 2 ton bomb. This bunch of TNT wrapped in heavy metals is like handling a hand grenade the size of a refrigerator. Unless the bomb is near a populated area it's just best to cordon off the area and leave it to rust. If it did detonate it would not be a dirty bomb, but it would leave a good sized crater and potentially kill anyone within perhaps a mile of it from the resulting shrapnel.
Technically, a uranium tamper is still fissioned with fast neutron flux, so it is partly there for its nuclear properties, isn't it?
That's my understanding as well. It's the choice of materials for this outer casing that, as far as I can tell, is what separates a high yield three stage device (uranium), a low or medium yield two stage device (lead or steel), and enhanced radiation weapons (AKA a neutron bomb or salted bomb, using some other material).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I stated "that we haven't seen any real warming for two decades" which will not show on those graphs because they use different time scales. If man made CO2 is the cause of global warming then we'd have seen warming during the time in which the CO2 concentration has been highest, in the last 20 years.
People can show warming or cooling by cherry picking a starting point in the historical temperature data. I noticed a lot of charts will start in the 1940s, because temps were cooling before then. The temp in 1934 was higher than 1998. I've seen charts start in 1975 or so, because temps cooled before then too.
Humans have lived through a lot of warming and cooling but we didn't burn oil or coal in any significant quantity until the Industrial Revolution. Even after that time we saw a few warming and cooling periods. Putting any blame on humans for warming since that time should also mean giving us credit for any cooling, no?
We've seen cooling in global temps since 1998. The AGW types won't give credit to humans for this, even though humans have done so much to reduce CO2 emissions. But no, people bad, nature good.
I think I realized why these types are called "tree huggers", because if they embraced just about any other living thing they'd be injured or dead. Go hug some poison oak, a cactus, or a hornets nest. Give give a big ol' bear hug to an actual bear. At some point in giving the bear a hug your carbon cycle will complete and no one has to worry about your carbon foot print ever again.
This is not news to people that have paid attention to the science of global warming. As much as the AGW alarmists scream about "science" you'd think that they'd stop screaming once in a while and do some actual science. But then if they had then they wouldn't be AGW alarmists.
The correlation between plant growth and CO2 concentration is not news to anyone that has even minimal knowledge of biology. CO2 is plant food, if you make more food available to them they tend to grow faster, stronger, and higher. It should be only a small leap in logic that natural plant growth will place a limit on the speed in which CO2 concentrations can grow and how high those concentrations can get.
What is finally making the AGW types pay attention to the science is that we haven't seen any real warming for two decades. What we'll see next is some articles about scientists noticed that the recent sea level rise has been happening for a very long time and at a rate that has been relatively constant for centuries.
I will stop just short of calling AGW a hoax because everyone involved knows very little on how the climate works. What I am quite certain about is that people have been using AGW as an excuse to grow government power and/or personally enrich themselves with "fixes" to AGW that are hoaxes.
A bad car analogy is having car troubles and focusing on only the left rear tire valve stem. With all the complexities to the climate it is madness to attribute any climate changes to only CO2 produced from human fossil fuel consumption. It is then further madness to not recognize the natural systems that have kept this system stable for so long and how that might interact with that increased CO2 output.
If IMDB loses this because it has the "scent of extortion" then I expect IMDB to respond within the law but also in a way to retaliate against those that want their ages hidden. For example, IMDB can merely respond to any request of removing the age by removing the entire biography page. IMDB is not obligated to provide these people with free advertising, just give them a choice, a complete bio which includes their age, no bio, or pay for a customized bio page. Or even make it simpler, no bio page or pay to have one created.
This is a bunch of bullshit, the argument for the removal of ages is to fight "subconscious", "inherent", or "inadvertent" agism. If they have a claim of demonstrable agism then go fight that. We cannot fight against something when we cannot even prove it exists.
I'm reminded of the crybullies that want transgendered actors to play transgendered roles when it was likely these same people that fought to keep an actor's status as gay, transgendered, etc. secret from the people recruiting them. Also, acting is about people pretending to be someone that they are not. Should it be illegal for an actor to portray a police officer in a movie unless they have actually attended a government police academy? If they didn't go to an academy they they aren't actually police officers, right? Gay actors have played straight men and vice versa for a very long time but now for some reason its an issue.
My guess on why stupid shit like this is coming up is that society has become so free from prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism that people will actively seek it out and see it when its not there.
Having worked at one time for a company that sold telephone directories and online advertising I can see this from the IMDB perspective. When I worked at the ad company we would have free listings for businesses as a service to the people that bought the directories and as an incentive for paid advertising from the businesses. If a business called in with a correction to factual information, such as we had the wrong phone number listed, or we misspelled the business name, then we'd fix it for free. We did this for free because it added value to our products.
If a business wanted their address removed then we wouldn't do that for free because that is something people can figure out on their own from another source and not listing it devalues the product for people paying for the directory. If they want information removed then we'd only do so at a price to make up for the loss in value of our product. It also creates a disincentive for trivial changes to a business listing, changing a listing takes a person time to perform which costs money. Just having someone answer the phone or look at an e-mail costs the ad company money, if they want access to the people that will answer the phone quickly and cater to their whimsy on how their listings look then they should pay for it.
I don't see the problem with IMDB requiring a paid subscription to their service to remove the age from a person listed. A person's age is factual information, available from other sources, and changing an entry in their database takes time and money which IMDB should be compensated for to provide that service.
IMDB is a business and list the names, ages, roles performed, etc. at no cost to them. The information they list for free is factual information, available elsewhere, and by making the listing they are in effect giving these people free advertising for their work in the hope to entice them to pay for more services. IMDB will not give false information on behalf of these people, that is not only unethical but also many times illegal. What they can do though is make additions to a listing, or hide certain factual information, but only if someone pays for it because that is where the real costs come in.
I believe IMDB is in the right here.
However, I think you're silly to be skeptical of global warming.
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me on AGW so long as we can agree on solutions. I believe that we have bigger problems with importing oil than the carbon output, if we can agree on strategies that can reduce oil importation then I don't care what you think about AGW.
What I have found out is that burning plant matter for energy is demonstrably bad for the economy and bad for the environment. People need to eat and people eat plant matter. Burning plant matter is burning food. The whole idea of "agricultural waste" is laughable. Those corn stalks and soybean hulls that some people want to burn is wasteful. That plant matter is erosion control, nitrogen fixers, and all kinds of good for the soil. If we don't put that plant matter back in the fields then farmers have to use artificial fertilizers, the kind made from natural gas mostly, to make up for it.
Ethanol is a real bad idea too, I'd go into it but this post is long enough already. Any kind of bio-fuel is a bad idea except perhaps those that are dangerous to human health in some way, like sewage and medical waste, I'm not terribly opposed to burning that kind of material generally because we will often burn it anyway to dispose of it so we may as well derive energy from it.
I can get along with AGW people, just so long as they don't lobby for things that destroy the economy and my standard of living to "save" the planet. The planet is going to be fine, it will still be here even if the seas rise and ice caps melt, it's people we need to worry about.
We could save the trees for building material if we used nuclear power for heat instead. Of course we need heat but we don't need to burn wood, coal, or oil, to do it.
What we also see are AGW types that lobby against nuclear power as well. Some AGW types leave us in a corner of where we cannot burn fossil fuels, cannot use nuclear power, and so we are left with burning wood, which even then some are unhappy with. These kinds of AGW types are insane and cannot be reasoned with. The AGW types that advocate for nuclear power are at least reasonable since it leaves us with an "out" from returning to hunter gatherer society.
As you may have guesses I am skeptical of AGW but I will play along with the AGW theory so long as we can have nuclear power. No fossil fuels and no nuclear means living like cavemen or an environmental disaster as we fight over the last of the trees to cut down, and then we live like cavemen.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
What is just maddening to me is the trend for using wood for heat and energy. While I'm not sure that deforestation is really an issue I do understand that wood is a multipurpose crop (and it is a crop, just like corn or watermelons are a crop) and burning wood means less of it for building material, paper, and Parmesan cheese filler.
I've seen AGW believers get pilloried by their own for advocating that trees should be grown and used for building material to sequester carbon. I guess, somehow, it's better for the carbon cycle or something to burn those trees for heat.
I do agree that carbon taxes are a loser, both as public policy and as a means to reduce carbon output. As a policy people don't want to see their costs go up for fuel (vehicle and heat), electricity, and everything really since most every product we buy needs to be shipped, refrigerated, heated, and all of those processes take energy. As a means to reduce carbon output it fails because energy use is a largely inelastic demand. Even if prices for fuel go up people still need to eat, drive to work, use lights, and so on. It might keep people from taking a drive to visit Grandma but then it's less about reducing carbon and really sinking into quality of life, mobility (social and transportation), and just generally making life worse.
After something like 40 years of being told to "reduce, recycle, reuse" we are running into diminishing returns. We've cut all the fat and now we're cutting into bone here. Don't tell me I need to reduce my energy consumption, tell me that we are going to see some nuclear power plants built. Nuclear power will save the trees, provide inexpensive energy, and replace dirty coal.
I remember when I was in school, and working at the same time, I would not be able to afford a macbook pro, and requiring such an expensive machine seems counterproductive.
I've taken classes where the textbook costs a lot of money, sometimes an order of magnitude more than textbooks for other classes. Are you going to tell the instructor to require a cheaper textbook because it is "counterproductive"?
It sucks when an instructor requires expensive supplies for a course. If you don't like it then find a different instructor, a different course, or a different school. If you believe the instructor is an idiot for requiring a Mac to take the course then feel free to tell the instructor he/she is an idiot and drop the course.
Besides the instructor should not be providing basic computer operation support and hand holding when your using specific software.
In order to avoid the instructor having to provide basic computer support all students should be using the same operating system and the same software. If the instructor says hit Command-7 on the computer then every student should be able to find the Command key and not have to figure out of the equivalent is the Windows key, the Alt key, or if that macro even works on their system.
The instructor doesn't know how familiar the student is with computers, or a specific operating system, so they will simplify things to avoid the hand holding.
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
It's not meaningless because then Google doesn't have to take a hit to their brand when those cables, devices, whatever go up in smoke.
The point is that Google is looking out for Google, not that Google is looking out for some no-name maker of USB shit. Google wants happy customers, they do it by putting their name on quality stuff.
And it took them only three decades of "marketing" to get me as a customer. Seems so easy that any idiot can do it.
It's about Google protecting its brand. A device that uses Google's OS has a connection in the mind of the consumer. If a device associated with Google fails in some way (such as bursting into flames for not complying with the USB charging spec) then that reflects poorly on Google even though they had nothing to do with the hardware.
Bad car analogy time...
Imagine if Ford bought Firestone tires for their trucks. Ford, out of a concern for performance of the truck, decides to lower the inflation pressure of the tires without telling Firestone of this change. If the tires blow out then this reflects badly on Firestone. Firestone followed all written specifications as defined by SAE, CAB, BBQ, and any other TLA that comes along. Firestone did nothing wrong and yet in the mind of the consumer there is a suspicion of some wrongdoing even if there is a government investigation that clears them. Ford takes a hit in consumer confidence too but they might not care as much because they can weather the hit by relying on the sale of the other brands they use (Mercury, Lincoln, Mazda, etc.) and consumers not knowing the relationship. Firestone, out of a desire to protect their brand, no longer sells tires to Ford.
A device manufacturer might make something that runs the Google OS as well as another OS but under a different brand. If this device goes up in flames because the USB charging spec wasn't followed then Google takes a hit in consumer confidence because the Google brand was on the device. The hardware maker might not care because they sold a bunch of stuff but their name wasn't on it. If the device goes up in smoke too many times then they will quietly discontinue that model and keep selling stuff with some other brand on it.
Google is reminding the device makers to follow the USB spec because bad things can happen if they don't. Google is enforcing this compliance with the spec with an implied threat to end doing business with them.
I hope that helps, I probably didn't explain it well.
Let the Apple bashing begin in 3... 2... 1...
The iMac I refer to was purchased in 1999, it was a "blueberry" model to give an idea of its age. The printer was bought shortly after, also blue colored. When the computer died years later the printer was no longer supported and no updated drivers existed. It was a cheap USB inkjet printer, not something you'd see supporting PostScript or PCL.
The computer that replaced the iMac had Windows on it. So we were trying to print on a cheap five year old printer, designed for a Mac, from Windows. We found drivers that sort of worked but it would jam up the printer every so often. We eventually gave up and bought a laser printer. This thing had it all, or so we thought. It supported PCL, IP printing, all kinds of stuff. We thought we were done. What it did not support was AirPrint, because that came out shortly after that printer was made.
When Mom got the iPad it could not find the printer because the printer didn't speak AirPrint. Again the printer is now about five years old and so the printing from an iOS device was not supported. We thought we had it figured out, we would just install Linux on the laptop and use it to share the printer. Well Linux keep losing track of the printer for some reason and the Linux drivers were crap. I bought a new printer that supported AirPrint and traded it for hers, I have the printer now and it works fine on Windows and MacOS. Mom is happy because she can print the coupons she gets by e-mail from the iPad.
It's not like we bought a pile of computers and printers. It was iMac first, then laptop, and now iPad. The first printer was a cheap inkjet, then a laser printer, and then a newer laser printer. This resulted in continued headaches as each new device was purchased because we didn't learn our lesson from the first time we fought with the printer.
The first printer was an Epson, as I recall, which maybe was "shit" as you say. The other two were Brother brand, which is not "shit". They were all nice printers and worked well for well beyond the time the drivers were updated by the manufacturer. I have a Brother printer that's been working fine for nearly 20 years. I only replaced it with the printer Mom had because I got fed up with Windows 10 freaking out over the old drivers.
Apple is only able to charge a premium because they have worked for decades to build up a mystique around their brand.
Question for you, how did Apple create this "mystique"?
I remember someone telling me he'd never buy a John Deere because he wasn't going to "buy a bunch of green paint" when he could get another tractor cheaper. Having grown up on a farm we learned the value of that "green paint" firsthand. You've heard the phrase "making hay while the sun shines"? Well it is hard to make hay if the baler is broken down. You can't fake "mystique" for decades. There has to be something real behind it because people figure that out real quick. This is sometimes a lesson learned the hard way, like seeing your crop get washed away in a hard rain because it wasn't baled up in time.
Having been an engineer and IT geek for years now I learned the value of that "Apple premium" firsthand as well. Apple makes good equipment, that is why they can charge a premium.
now how many other schools require their students to buy only mac, with the 30 year old notion that mac's are better at graphics and or music or whatever else, just so they can run software that will easily run any other laptop?
I'd like to turn this around. How many colleges require their students to buy a Windows computer with the 30 year old notion that Apple makes only "toys" and to do "real work" you need to run Windows?
I've recently enrolled in college to update my skills after having graduated many years ago. In my classes so far I don't recall ever being told what kind of computer I should get. In the class notes I will usually see how to run whatever software we are using on Windows and Linux, with the Mac users often left to figure it out on their own. What is odd is that when looking around the classroom at what kind of computers students bring to class I do see a lot of Apple laptops. The instructors seem to be ignorant of Macs but the students seem to figure out how to make them work in class.
There seemed to be an open hostility to Apple computers way back when I studied engineering and this seems to remain today. You point out yourself that Macs can run most any software just as well as any other computer, then why do you care that the students buy what the instructor recommends for the class?
I believe I know why the instructors require their students to use a particular kind of computer, the answer is because it makes their job easier. If a student is stuck on something and has a question and the student is using a system that the instructor is not familiar with then the instructor cannot help. The instructors cannot be bothered with learning how to use multiple operating systems for the convenience of the students. The students are presumably there to learn art, not computer skills. They are also presumably spending many thousands of dollars on tuition, books, materials, etc. and therefore the cost of the Mac should just be considered like any other supply needed for the classes.
I get the impression that you are charging the art schools with the crime of subsidizing Apple sales. Where I go to school the university has a contract with Microsoft to provide software to all students as part of their fees. There is a very real subsidy of Microsoft going on at my school. This might even explain the popularity of Apples on campus. If a student bought, for example, a Dell laptop then they could only run Windows. If a student bought an Apple then they can download Windows for "free" from the university and install it so they can run both Mac OS and Windows, this would be a dual boot or a VM.
I'm not an art student but I do see an OS preference in the instructors. I have gone against the OS preference of the instructor before and it does make things more difficult. If the instructor sees an unfamiliar system then they will be less likely to help the student if there is a question. If you want to learn the course material then get the computer the instructor recommends. If you want to piss off your instructor then don't get the computer the instructor recommends.
I believe that at its heart Linux is a kernel upon which one can build whatever kind of OS they wish, including for desktops, servers, and tablets. The "hack" you refer to has, IMHO, more to do with X11 than anything else. The rest of what people think of as a "Linux operating system" is a collection of GPL and BSD services, utilities, and so forth that are usually equally suited to a server or desktop. With the widespread use of GPL and BSD software across Linux based, Apple, and Microsoft operating systems the difference, again IMHO, lies almost entirely on how the screen is driven. Under the hood we see a lot of the same protocols, services, and so forth that in many ways they are interchangeable any more.
Maybe it's my being "savvy" that is coloring my view but the compatibility issues you speak of seem to lie less with technical ignorance and more with being an inattentive shopper. If you want to, for example, keep printing issues to a minimum then make sure the printer supports the protocols and features that match well with your preferences and the capabilities of the devices you wish to print from. When buying electronics one should make sure that the cables and protocols match, there is not much need to know all about how they work just that they are compatible.
Long ago Mom got an iMac and a printer, they worked well for a long time. When the iMac died it was replaced with a Windows laptop. My brothers and I tried to resolve the printer issues with different drivers and settings but ultimately the printer was replaced and the issues went away. When Mom got an iPad her printer issues returned. Again my brothers and I tried to fix it various ways, including installing Linux on the laptop, but the problems went away with a new printer.
Training is certainly part of it, every time Mom got a new printer someone had to show her how it worked. We tried to fix the compatibility issues and reluctance to train (and spend money) on a new device with software and hardware hacks. In the end it was just so much easier to get the right hardware and software and train on how they work.
Your parents' complaints about not being able to run whatever software is, again IMHO, being an inattentive shopper. This applies to so many things. It's like shopping for a furnace filter, nuts and bolts, or clothing. If you aren't paying attention to the size, shape, and color when you buy then you are going to have a problem. You don't need to be a mechanic to buy car tires any more than you need to be a computer scientist to buy software, but you should know the make, model, and year of your car when you buy tires just like you should be aware of the OS, computer model, and available ports on your computer when you buy a device or software for it.
My mom has used Ubuntu on her laptop for a long time without issues but after getting her iPad the laptop has been used less and less. She would just rather carry the much lighter iPad than the heavier laptop.
I don't know, I'm not married. Sure, the diamonds are on the engagement rings I guess. A bit of internet research tells me that some cultures have the jewel on the engagement ring and others on the wedding ring, with a plain gold (or other noble metal) band for the other.
Now that I think about it my older brother gave his wife a diamond ring for engagement and the wedding bands were relatively plain gold bands.
Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on a ring is beyond me anyways. Take all of the money you would have spent and put it towards a house or if that's not an issue, spend it traveling. Experiences together are worth more than a piece of carbon.
There is a lot of societal momentum behind the diamond ring, or at least in the ring itself. People like wedding bands and even my very practical brothers got wedding bands. They bought a nice rock for the wife but they didn't, at least in my mind, go overboard on the expense. One brother, a mechanical engineer, got a wedding band made of titanium or something for himself, it's not gold and cost less than a nice dinner out.
You can try to do away with the ring but I believe you are going to have a lot of resistance, not just because of the De Beers money but because of society generally. Think of a replacement. Encourage people to just have gold bands, which as I recall predate the diamond ring anyway. I've seen people get tattoos instead, not a "I heart U" tattoo on their arm which I assume people have done, but instead a tattooed wedding band around the finger. Perhaps not as "forever" as a diamond or gold ring but it will be with the people for a time even after they die.
Your statements lead me to believe you are not married and likely don't know many married couples. Women want rings. Convincing a woman that diamonds are "bad" may be successful but they will want a ring. It might not be the symbol of wealth that they were before but they still are a symbol of fidelity. A gold band doesn't have to cost much but they are a part of our culture and your protestations won't rid us of them.
Hillary Clinton is an evil person. She left Americans, people under her employ, to die in Libya.
What did you expect her to do
I expected her to give a damn. I expected her to at least try to save those people.
The attack on September 11, 2012 should not have been a surprise and it turns out it was planned in advance. The people on site knew they were at risk and Clinton refused their requests for more security. Ever since 2001 the date of 9/11 is a time when terrorists like to carry out attacks on the USA. Clinton did not only refuse to give them more security in Libya when some security contracts ran out they were not renewed. The people there were at considerable risk.
When the attack did come the State Department knew about it within minutes. The attack went on for hours before the last of the people there died. The US military has quick response teams placed around hot spots like this to respond to attacks like this. There was a team ready and able to respond but the State Department refused to allow them to go. They had been fighting for SIX HOURS before the last of the security detail had been killed. A drone was already on site and delivering video of the attack minutes after they became aware of a possible terrorist attack.
I don't know where the US Navy had carrier groups at the time but those F-18 Hornets can haul ass if asked to. At a minimum Clinton could have sent some of these fast movers to fly overhead to put a little fear in the hearts of the attackers. I recall reading that the security detail on site had laser designators for guided weapons, they knew where the mortars were coming from and they had them lit up. It is quite possible that the F-18s could have destroyed those mortars before the American security detail was overrun. Helicopters don't move as fast as F-18s but they can carry troops and weapons, and more importantly they can go just about anywhere to take people away. While the F-18s were flying overhead with full afterburners, to disorient the attackers with sonic booms, the helicopters could have been en route to pull those American lives out of there. Even if the people there were dead by the time they arrived we could at least say we tried. Also, by sending a QRT we'd also have people on site to protect valuable documents there and potentially find the people responsible for the attack.
That's what Clinton could have done that day, but instead she left them to die.
Again, this was an attack that was potentially foreseeable for days or weeks in advance. If Clinton was doing her job then we'd likely have had proper security on site from the start and the attack might never have happened. It's a common tactic for the State Department and the US military to put a couple M1 tanks in front of valuable assets in sketchy areas. That tends to deter attacks. Even if someone is stupid enough to start shooting on a building guarded by tanks then at least the tanks are there to return fire and soak up some of the damage. I'm sure it is possible these people would be just as dead if there were tanks on site, and a quick response team was on the way to reinforce them but, again, at least we could have said we tried. Clinton didn't try. She was either oblivious, didn't care, or was so mentally addled from her many falls that she couldn't think straight.
What did I expect her to do? I expected her to try.
More info from an excellently produced video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...