" lot of those cadets go on to train for volunteer emergency communications later on."
A lot of those cadets, when deployed, will be engaging in emergency communications daily as part of their mission. They are almost over trained for volunteer emergency communications. Almost.
How hard would this be for a SDR/RaspPi combo? Seems doable, but I would need a month to study up for Tech license. At least no code, I couldn't copy 2 wpm today without a recorder... Naw, I would rather go QRP with all the cool new tech and old school technique. Or not.
IBM Global Business Services is a GLOBAL business. It's in their name. It's their mission.
Locustlike? IBM, like any very large corporation, is intent on dominating their market. Domination. Not just success. Because if you don;t dominate, some other organization will. And they will take from you. Just the way it is.
Now, the question is how you choose to succeed at your mission - exceptional customer service? Scraping the value out of every transaction? Underpricing the competition? Driving costs down to force profitability out of a mundane market offering?
I'm pretty fortunate, working for a Fortune 100 company that thrives by delivering exceptional customer service, making prudent but fearless cost decisions to drive profitability *AND* enable development of new and better product and services, and is lead by clear headed, fearlessly honest leadership at (almost) every level. No, I do not work for IBM, nor GM, nor any Internet company. But I remember a former employer who did business with IBM in the 80s, and he remembers meeting with submanager after submanager, in windowless offices, pleading for approval so he could GIVE IBM HIS MONEY. When Fat Lou Gerstner took over at IBM, he turned the elephant on a dime, and most of those submanagers disappeared. Shrinking the management force, for one thing, put IBM on a leaner cost footing, and that started the, for me, second heyday of IBM, when a small-mid businessman could get an IBM salesman pitching the System/3x, another one pitching the RS/6000, a third pitching their PC systems with Windows NTAS (or Novell, they weren't picky). And the RS/6000 guy would show you file serving to your PC users, and the System/3x guy would pivot to an AS/400 and include the PC Server card. Tough for a local VAR to get wedged in and make their pitch. Now IBM is pitching what, cloud services, like AWS? Azure? You can make your own 'cloud' in the telco room, since that's empty now.. I don't hear about much innovation from IBM GS, but that's because I work in an environment where IBM delivers open source platforms with expensive and obtuse management layers. Feh, we could have gone with Red Hat, but we would have bought them outright - cheaper in the long run.
IBM is gone mediocre on a global basis. They can make a profit until someone finds a way to overwhelm them. In the interim they cut costs and pretend to harness energy overseas they cannot find in the US. And they may be right, because the energy in the US is focused on exciting cool things, and IBM is now just one voice among many shouting 'I'm cool! I'M COOL DAMMIT!'.
"What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda"
"no emotional control" - Um, facts not in evidence. Please offer your specific examples.
"prone to outbursts" - Sounds like LBJ. Or Truman. Or Stonewall Jackson. Or Nixon.
"ignorance and stupidity" - Which are, apparently, qualifying characteristics to be President. Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
"get his own party under control" - This is a common misconception. Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
"He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda" - And finally we have an astute observation. It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
- No, the name is 'Anonymous Coward'. The political affiliation is theirs to choose and define.
"What, the right side????"
- Unexpectedly insightful from you, until you define the 'right side' as Republicans. It should be obvious by now that the Republican leadership (I call them the GOPe) no longer acts as a right-wing movement.
"You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?"
Even GH made mistakes. Though I believe NAFTA hasn't been so bad, since it was negated by the rise of Chinese trade. Woops, that didn't work out at all like it was expected to.
"Which threats? Like, say, the 911 attacks, during the presidency of George W. Bush, that occurred because he ignored the repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous?"
Well, yes. Given that the border security is obviously (by their own words and actions) proven to be anathema to the Left, and the obvious effects, our current President, being a non-Leftist, is acting consistently with a non-Leftist philosophy and pursuing improved border security.
"That would be nice. Except I see no evidence that anybody on the right has the slightest notion of how to fix it"
- Neither political party has any real interest in 'fixing healthcare'. The Leftist leadership intended for the system to fail, justifying nationalizing healthcare - read those old reports from those who drafted the legislation - it was intentionally designed to fail. The GOPe won't do anything, they are acting solely in self-interest, desperate to cling to their jobs and power.
"In what way? I haven't seen any evidence of people on the right trying to improve the country."
- Care to offer your definition of 'improve the country'?
"When you say "I'm a centrist," and then follow it up with "the right is good, good, nothing but good, and the left is bad, bad, nothing but bad", the second part pretty much shows the first part is a lie."
- I agree with your observation that the poster has a 'the right is good...' and 'the left is bad...' view. Remarkably, though I consider myself a Conservative, and therefore without a political party to represent me or to present candidates to vote for. This does NOT define me as a centrist, but rather a right-winger, no longer represented by represented by the traditional right-wing political party leadership. It is difficult to define a centrist today because I believe most are in the position of rejecting the Left, but feeling betrayed by the GOPe. Many are on the different axis, Libertarian or Anarchist, the most intellectual taking a 'Voluntaryist' stand. as a self-professed Conservative, I see the Left as a genuine threat to this nation's existence as intended by its founders and the first 200 or so years of its existence. Such changes they intend to make by fiat, usurping power in all branches of government and 'legislating' away the protections and freedoms intended by our founders. This should be obvious to an observer.
But to challenge a self-professed centrist and claim they are unwittingly right-wing devolves the argument into an us v them battle, and sadly one of those, you choose which represents 'us' and which 'them', no longer opposes the 'other' in our federal government. This leaves many voters without a representative political party. And so Trump is elected as a Republican, though he is clearly not, and need not be. He usurped the GOPe (an insult they will never, ever forgive) and win the election as the genuine 'Opposition' candidate, first to the GOP Establishment (the GOPe I keep denigrating), and then in opposition to the Leftist candidate. He won based on his third alternative - neither Left nor artificial Right. Cruz was the only republican alternative to a GOPe-approve candidate, and Cruz was destroyed by his own party. Sanders' campaign suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.
As a Conservative, I am in league with Centrists. Libertarians, Anarchists, and most who reject the major political parties
"And yet the problem was not being taken seriously by politicians and employers"
In America, perhaps you need to consider an employer's interest in this issue as finding the tradeoff between maximum profit and maximum employee productivity.
Why are politicians involved? Some right being violated? Our politicians are mostly in the business of violating our rights already. No more work to be done there.
Really, looking to government to solve the problem is usually THE PROBLEM.
And it looks like the high-end smartphone business is saturated. As a replacement market, the product life cycle has to be short enough for profits.
The low-end phone market has massive growth opportunities, but these are low-cost items, and so efficiency has to permit a profit worth the effort. Math. The mid-range is fulfilling the Moore's Law promise of PCs - Average PCs are good enough for almost all users. Look at corporate IT, web based services mean you need a desktop PC that can run a browser, email client, and the occasional word processing/spreadsheet suite. That's fulfilled by run of the mill chipsets, and high-end chips are being aimed at servers, AI, and blockchain mining. Even gaming is secondary, and graphics chipsets are being bought up by the aformentioned new darlings of the industry.
High-end smartphones are not a growth industry, which makes it hard on the fringe manufacturers.
Leftist theory is indulged when you have enough of your (or someone else's) parents' money to explore failed theories and try to make them work.
When you, on the other hand, have to work, you abandon failed theories and get a paycheck to feed your family. Avoiding work is an indulgence.
Not that exploring theories is a bad thing, but clearheaded honest appraisals of failed theories should result in exploring new, potentially successful theories, not hashing over history well written and well understood by those who accept facts. And working is not a bad thing. It's ok to be part of someone else's dream, and better when they compensate you for your labor.
Google can indulge leftist theories only because they have succeeded in the non-leftist marketplace. Indulging those who oppose the means of your success doesn't make much sense to me. If it's fairness you seek, know that in addition to the inherent unfairness of the Universe, Man's heart is not kind and generous. Left to human nature, we devolve into mean, cynical, violent creatures that will take care of ourselves first, and to the genuine harm of others, and only when we are satisfied will we consider the needs of others, usually only when they result in advantage to us.
To turn our hearts from pure self-interest requires a change of heart, and leftist theory offers no such thing. Ever.
- Gradual vacuum failure: Increased drag/resistance, system sensing and ordered shutdown, survivable but recovery will require process and equipment. - Instantaneous vacuum failure: caused by or accompanied by tube failure/deconstruction - collision and rapid dissection of the capsule, probably not survivable for all passengers. - Instantaneous maglev failure, loss of suspension: Probable contact with tube, friction or impact force causing tube or capsule failure, probably not survivable for all passengers. - Gradual maglev failure, loss of suspension: Possible loss of propulsion, slowing, probable contact with tube, friction or impact force causing tube or capsule failure, probably not survivable for all passengers depending on speed. - Maglev malfunction, loss of speed only: Survivable, unless suspension is dependent on same system as propulsion.
It's actually not very promising to me. the speed does make survival unlikely, but there are several failure regimes. Some are catastrophic, some not, but in practice all may be catastrophic, and that's not good.
Imagine, California, the most difficult state regulatory environment, being host to this?
Since the second virtue of blockchain is anonymity (IOW security by obfuscation), and we know that is merely a question of applying sufficient resources to discern the trail of transactions, it's only a matter of time before a specific scheme is understood and decoded sufficiently to subvert security and pwn
As with all encryption, success is measured by that time, be it scale (centuries) or absolutes (6 years to decrypt my digital wallet when it's being replaced every 3-5).
So alas, blockchain is just another security puzzle. A much better one? Ask that in 20 years. Money is supposed to last longer than that.
Stop that. Using blockchain to maintain your 'digital identity' only requires that the blockchain be *functional* for perhaps 110+ years, though if you need historical or archival data past death the required timeframe is essentially infinite.
That can;t be so hard for this remarkable, unassailable tech, can it? Besides, you could always reconstruct it...
I'm equally confused. In Germany it as recently illegal to display or promote Nazi symbolism, wasn't it? The remnants of the Nazi Party were declared unconstitutional. Hardly freedom there, but they are in fact welcome to do so, it's their country.
France is interesting. This quote:
"Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the French Association of Protestants: "I have no time for the idea that we live in a country that represses religious liberties. We continue to enjoy total freedom in setting up religious organizations as long as the existing legislation is known and applied.""
Leaves me somewhat confused.
Britain, so long as it is a member of the EU, can lay claim to a partial free speech right. Partial.
There are other examples. Europe does not come to mind for me as the 'lit city on the hill'. Eastern Europe is a morass of racial and ethnic wars and oppression.
"then, there is the question of what hate speech is. "
As the parent pointed out there is NO 'hate speech'. There is unpleasant, disagreeable, contrary speech, but hate speech is the term used to justify censorship.
And much of the EU would very much like to remove 'hate speech' as 'illegal speech' as soon as possible, to limit the exposure, resistance, and accountability of those who want to decide what is said.
Pure censorship, mostly, the rest is thinly disguised censorship.
Neither of which alternatives deterred you from responding as if you had.
To be clear, teaching socialism is teaching failure. Teaching capitalism is teaching they only system demonstrated to be capable of improving the lives of common people.
Neither is perfect. One is oppressive and crushes the spirit. The other holds promise, demonstrated by recent attempts.
Slashdot Mirror
" lot of those cadets go on to train for volunteer emergency communications later on."
A lot of those cadets, when deployed, will be engaging in emergency communications daily as part of their mission. They are almost over trained for volunteer emergency communications. Almost.
"useful easily once ever 1-3 days from a given location."
Which is still very useful for noncritical communications following a disaster.
The 1802 was pretty popular CPU for military use in the 70s-80s. Not just for space use. God, I remember that, wow.
How hard would this be for a SDR/RaspPi combo? Seems doable, but I would need a month to study up for Tech license. At least no code, I couldn't copy 2 wpm today without a recorder... Naw, I would rather go QRP with all the cool new tech and old school technique. Or not.
"The "FalconSAT" name certainly suggests a link to SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket,"
No it doesn't. The US Air Force Academy's athletic mascot and team name is the 'Falcons'.
Does your history begin in 2002?
No.
It's cheaper than keeping him.
IBM Global Business Services is a GLOBAL business. It's in their name. It's their mission.
Locustlike? IBM, like any very large corporation, is intent on dominating their market. Domination. Not just success. Because if you don;t dominate, some other organization will. And they will take from you. Just the way it is.
Now, the question is how you choose to succeed at your mission - exceptional customer service? Scraping the value out of every transaction? Underpricing the competition? Driving costs down to force profitability out of a mundane market offering?
I'm pretty fortunate, working for a Fortune 100 company that thrives by delivering exceptional customer service, making prudent but fearless cost decisions to drive profitability *AND* enable development of new and better product and services, and is lead by clear headed, fearlessly honest leadership at (almost) every level. No, I do not work for IBM, nor GM, nor any Internet company. But I remember a former employer who did business with IBM in the 80s, and he remembers meeting with submanager after submanager, in windowless offices, pleading for approval so he could GIVE IBM HIS MONEY. When Fat Lou Gerstner took over at IBM, he turned the elephant on a dime, and most of those submanagers disappeared. Shrinking the management force, for one thing, put IBM on a leaner cost footing, and that started the, for me, second heyday of IBM, when a small-mid businessman could get an IBM salesman pitching the System/3x, another one pitching the RS/6000, a third pitching their PC systems with Windows NTAS (or Novell, they weren't picky). And the RS/6000 guy would show you file serving to your PC users, and the System/3x guy would pivot to an AS/400 and include the PC Server card. Tough for a local VAR to get wedged in and make their pitch. Now IBM is pitching what, cloud services, like AWS? Azure? You can make your own 'cloud' in the telco room, since that's empty now.. I don't hear about much innovation from IBM GS, but that's because I work in an environment where IBM delivers open source platforms with expensive and obtuse management layers. Feh, we could have gone with Red Hat, but we would have bought them outright - cheaper in the long run.
IBM is gone mediocre on a global basis. They can make a profit until someone finds a way to overwhelm them. In the interim they cut costs and pretend to harness energy overseas they cannot find in the US. And they may be right, because the energy in the US is focused on exciting cool things, and IBM is now just one voice among many shouting 'I'm cool! I'M COOL DAMMIT!'.
"What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda"
"no emotional control" - Um, facts not in evidence. Please offer your specific examples.
"prone to outbursts" - Sounds like LBJ. Or Truman. Or Stonewall Jackson. Or Nixon.
"ignorance and stupidity" - Which are, apparently, qualifying characteristics to be President. Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
"get his own party under control" - This is a common misconception. Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
"He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda" - And finally we have an astute observation. It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
"No, you're an anonymous coward."
- No, the name is 'Anonymous Coward'. The political affiliation is theirs to choose and define.
"What, the right side????"
- Unexpectedly insightful from you, until you define the 'right side' as Republicans. It should be obvious by now that the Republican leadership (I call them the GOPe) no longer acts as a right-wing movement.
"You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?"
Even GH made mistakes. Though I believe NAFTA hasn't been so bad, since it was negated by the rise of Chinese trade. Woops, that didn't work out at all like it was expected to.
"Which threats? Like, say, the 911 attacks, during the presidency of George W. Bush, that occurred because he ignored the repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous?"
Well, yes. Given that the border security is obviously (by their own words and actions) proven to be anathema to the Left, and the obvious effects, our current President, being a non-Leftist, is acting consistently with a non-Leftist philosophy and pursuing improved border security.
"That would be nice. Except I see no evidence that anybody on the right has the slightest notion of how to fix it"
- Neither political party has any real interest in 'fixing healthcare'. The Leftist leadership intended for the system to fail, justifying nationalizing healthcare - read those old reports from those who drafted the legislation - it was intentionally designed to fail. The GOPe won't do anything, they are acting solely in self-interest, desperate to cling to their jobs and power.
"In what way? I haven't seen any evidence of people on the right trying to improve the country."
- Care to offer your definition of 'improve the country'?
"When you say "I'm a centrist," and then follow it up with "the right is good, good, nothing but good, and the left is bad, bad, nothing but bad", the second part pretty much shows the first part is a lie."
- I agree with your observation that the poster has a 'the right is good...' and 'the left is bad...' view. Remarkably, though I consider myself a Conservative, and therefore without a political party to represent me or to present candidates to vote for. This does NOT define me as a centrist, but rather a right-winger, no longer represented by represented by the traditional right-wing political party leadership. It is difficult to define a centrist today because I believe most are in the position of rejecting the Left, but feeling betrayed by the GOPe. Many are on the different axis, Libertarian or Anarchist, the most intellectual taking a 'Voluntaryist' stand. as a self-professed Conservative, I see the Left as a genuine threat to this nation's existence as intended by its founders and the first 200 or so years of its existence. Such changes they intend to make by fiat, usurping power in all branches of government and 'legislating' away the protections and freedoms intended by our founders. This should be obvious to an observer.
But to challenge a self-professed centrist and claim they are unwittingly right-wing devolves the argument into an us v them battle, and sadly one of those, you choose which represents 'us' and which 'them', no longer opposes the 'other' in our federal government. This leaves many voters without a representative political party. And so Trump is elected as a Republican, though he is clearly not, and need not be. He usurped the GOPe (an insult they will never, ever forgive) and win the election as the genuine 'Opposition' candidate, first to the GOP Establishment (the GOPe I keep denigrating), and then in opposition to the Leftist candidate. He won based on his third alternative - neither Left nor artificial Right. Cruz was the only republican alternative to a GOPe-approve candidate, and Cruz was destroyed by his own party. Sanders' campaign suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.
As a Conservative, I am in league with Centrists. Libertarians, Anarchists, and most who reject the major political parties
"And yet the problem was not being taken seriously by politicians and employers"
In America, perhaps you need to consider an employer's interest in this issue as finding the tradeoff between maximum profit and maximum employee productivity.
Why are politicians involved? Some right being violated? Our politicians are mostly in the business of violating our rights already. No more work to be done there.
Really, looking to government to solve the problem is usually THE PROBLEM.
And it looks like the high-end smartphone business is saturated. As a replacement market, the product life cycle has to be short enough for profits.
The low-end phone market has massive growth opportunities, but these are low-cost items, and so efficiency has to permit a profit worth the effort. Math. The mid-range is fulfilling the Moore's Law promise of PCs - Average PCs are good enough for almost all users. Look at corporate IT, web based services mean you need a desktop PC that can run a browser, email client, and the occasional word processing/spreadsheet suite. That's fulfilled by run of the mill chipsets, and high-end chips are being aimed at servers, AI, and blockchain mining. Even gaming is secondary, and graphics chipsets are being bought up by the aformentioned new darlings of the industry.
High-end smartphones are not a growth industry, which makes it hard on the fringe manufacturers.
It seems that Google bought the HTC design/engineering team, at least some of it.
Was any manufacturing capability part of the deal? If not, HTC might be the contract manufacturer for Goggle's phone-related business. Not a bad deal.
Leftist theory is indulged when you have enough of your (or someone else's) parents' money to explore failed theories and try to make them work.
When you, on the other hand, have to work, you abandon failed theories and get a paycheck to feed your family. Avoiding work is an indulgence.
Not that exploring theories is a bad thing, but clearheaded honest appraisals of failed theories should result in exploring new, potentially successful theories, not hashing over history well written and well understood by those who accept facts. And working is not a bad thing. It's ok to be part of someone else's dream, and better when they compensate you for your labor.
Google can indulge leftist theories only because they have succeeded in the non-leftist marketplace. Indulging those who oppose the means of your success doesn't make much sense to me. If it's fairness you seek, know that in addition to the inherent unfairness of the Universe, Man's heart is not kind and generous. Left to human nature, we devolve into mean, cynical, violent creatures that will take care of ourselves first, and to the genuine harm of others, and only when we are satisfied will we consider the needs of others, usually only when they result in advantage to us.
To turn our hearts from pure self-interest requires a change of heart, and leftist theory offers no such thing. Ever.
A current iteration of the Nexus 7 tablet would please me..
- Gradual vacuum failure: Increased drag/resistance, system sensing and ordered shutdown, survivable but recovery will require process and equipment.
- Instantaneous vacuum failure: caused by or accompanied by tube failure/deconstruction - collision and rapid dissection of the capsule, probably not survivable for all passengers.
- Instantaneous maglev failure, loss of suspension: Probable contact with tube, friction or impact force causing tube or capsule failure, probably not survivable for all passengers.
- Gradual maglev failure, loss of suspension: Possible loss of propulsion, slowing, probable contact with tube, friction or impact force causing tube or capsule failure, probably not survivable for all passengers depending on speed.
- Maglev malfunction, loss of speed only: Survivable, unless suspension is dependent on same system as propulsion.
It's actually not very promising to me. the speed does make survival unlikely, but there are several failure regimes. Some are catastrophic, some not, but in practice all may be catastrophic, and that's not good.
Imagine, California, the most difficult state regulatory environment, being host to this?
Since the second virtue of blockchain is anonymity (IOW security by obfuscation), and we know that is merely a question of applying sufficient resources to discern the trail of transactions, it's only a matter of time before a specific scheme is understood and decoded sufficiently to subvert security and pwn
As with all encryption, success is measured by that time, be it scale (centuries) or absolutes (6 years to decrypt my digital wallet when it's being replaced every 3-5).
So alas, blockchain is just another security puzzle. A much better one? Ask that in 20 years. Money is supposed to last longer than that.
Stop that. Using blockchain to maintain your 'digital identity' only requires that the blockchain be *functional* for perhaps 110+ years, though if you need historical or archival data past death the required timeframe is essentially infinite.
That can;t be so hard for this remarkable, unassailable tech, can it? Besides, you could always reconstruct it...
I'm equally confused. In Germany it as recently illegal to display or promote Nazi symbolism, wasn't it? The remnants of the Nazi Party were declared unconstitutional. Hardly freedom there, but they are in fact welcome to do so, it's their country.
France is interesting. This quote:
"Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the French Association of Protestants:
"I have no time for the idea that we live in a country that represses religious liberties. We continue to enjoy total freedom in setting up religious organizations as long as the existing legislation is known and applied.""
Leaves me somewhat confused.
Britain, so long as it is a member of the EU, can lay claim to a partial free speech right. Partial.
There are other examples. Europe does not come to mind for me as the 'lit city on the hill'. Eastern Europe is a morass of racial and ethnic wars and oppression.
"then, there is the question of what hate speech is. "
As the parent pointed out there is NO 'hate speech'. There is unpleasant, disagreeable, contrary speech, but hate speech is the term used to justify censorship.
And much of the EU would very much like to remove 'hate speech' as 'illegal speech' as soon as possible, to limit the exposure, resistance, and accountability of those who want to decide what is said.
Pure censorship, mostly, the rest is thinly disguised censorship.
Neither of which alternatives deterred you from responding as if you had.
To be clear, teaching socialism is teaching failure. Teaching capitalism is teaching they only system demonstrated to be capable of improving the lives of common people.
Neither is perfect. One is oppressive and crushes the spirit. The other holds promise, demonstrated by recent attempts.
Either you're not replying to me, or you've failed to understand my post.
The only Leftist Indoctrination on the radio is in the PSAs.
Cronyism. It's CRONYism, dammit! Sheesh, no wonder capitalism is so hard.
Forbid our institutions of higher learning teach what works.