If you could get any of these guys to wear a company print T-shirt instead of a suit and tie, I'm sure they'd be fighting over who gets to wear Power Pink.
Deutsche Telekom (Parent company of T-Mobile USoA) has been trying to get rid of T-Mobile USoA for years
If you can read the summary, it says they refused to sell it, they insisted on being in control of the combined company.
Trying to get rid of it would mean they were happy to have Sprint control it as the party not controlling it will get more money. I mean, control has value, right? If you're getting a controlling share of voting stock, the other people are going to get extra non-voting stock to compensate. If you're wanting to get rid of it, then you come up with a cash-and-stock deal where the other company buys as much of the control as they have cash for! That's not at all even close to the situation here.
You seem to be importing a narrative that has nothing to do with the context. As for your fan fiction, lets just say you're obviously not an MBA; maybe it is some other genre after all?
Deutch Telekom only has 3% more revenue than SoftBank, so they're close enough in size that whoever didn't get control of the combined company would be making a downhill move. But DT didn't throw it; Sprint is who threw.
In the past we had to use imperfect spam filters. In 1999 I even missed an important email because it was a false-positive in spam! gmail never puts my real mail in spam, and very very little spam makes it through (maybe 1 per month I click on "spam")
Google search was really good when there was a search language, but now it just mixed keywords with no advanced use control at all. The only thing you can do in most cases is to creatively alter the keyword list; in the past there were a whole bunch of programmatic operators that made it powerful. The quality now, basically anybody doing it would produce similar results if they had the user volume to tune it against.
If you're not going to go whole-hog and measure a metric ton of horse shit every day to filter out the very small amount of source data implied by it, then yeah, you're best off just not believing anything.
If you disbelieve everything you're almost there. The problem is, people want to believe something, but they don't want to admit that everybody is full of shit and that it would be a huge amount of work just to figure out what was actually claimed, and what was implied through phrasing but wasn't actually part of the data. In the end if you put the work in, there is a small amount of moderate, dispassionate middle-of-the-road data available, and everything else is a bunch of shrill horseshit.
For me it is a hobby; I started reading the papers on a daily basis in 3rd grade. If you spend enough time at it, a lot of the lies become standard ones that the exact same talking heads spew both sides of depending on the politics of the day, and so the filters do have opportunities to improve over time. The only problem is, the hobby is more likely to interesting to people who credulously run down rabbit holes than to people who are comfortable declaring most of it to be bullshit day after day.
It is easy to say that everything is bullshit, it is harder to say, "They don't know, and neither do I!" The more natural human tendency is, "They don't know, so let me tell you!"
Exactly, only one side of the story has clickbait potential.
What saddens me about it is how awful the average slashdot oldtimer's data filter is, even after decades of information glut. They still just believe whatever stupid bullshit sounds like it would be vaguely truthy, or whichever asshole is willing to phrase things in a nasty way, with no consideration at all given to information theory, to the analysis of who actually even has the information that you want. If you can at least trim the horseshit down to the versions from people who would know, it helps a lot, but even that is too much to ask around here.
If they weren't ready for prime time, I don't think they'd be flying them in Korea right now, especially not in a bomber support role! When they fly some B-1s with a bunch of F-35s and a single F-22, obviously they trust it in combat even with current software. War could break out during those flights, it isn't just training. One F-22 isn't what you want protecting multiple B-1s.
Large bays is a big problem in a highly aerodynamic aircraft that already has the wrong body shape.
You don't seem to understand the concept that the shape of the aircraft, the balance front to back, the balance point of the thrust, those are important things. And you have to change the shape for stealth, because you can't just put big bays in the places what was convenient for non-stealth craft.
I know you're a lot smarter than any of the aerospace engineers at Boeing or GE, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a lot of experience.
The changes you describe would result in a stealth trainer with very little combat capabilities, it is a well-understood problem even in the civilian military aerospace reporting. Janes Defense Weekly has been reporting on the exact issues for something like 20 years!
Generals don't come out of classified briefings on the F-35 saying, "It might be a success in the long run if we abandon our mission goals and save the program." Instead they come out saying, "Wow, hey, now I know how exciting the future is!"
Right, right, that's what the derpers say on the internet. The problem is that if you look at actual missions, if you listen to commanders who are in charge of these missions in Iraq or elsewhere, what they will explain is that going slow and looking at the ground works in some situations, for example when you're trying to find armor on the ground in certain types of scenario. Basically, it used to be great until infantry had more MANPADs and even just RPGs. Once the enemy realized that if they practiced a lot they can hit not only helicopters but also A-10s, they started doing it. Again, go to the interviews with people from Iraq; not interviews with infantry, all they can testify to is the psychological benefit of having some hardware in physical proximity. Listen to the mission commanders; they don't fly the A-10s low like you imagine anymore, because they were getting shot down. Not because they're scared of getting shot down, but because they were getting direct engine hits from RPGs. The thing is a sitting duck against fairly light weapons once the enemy figures out which weapons to use and which parts of the plane are vulnerable; and the cat is out of the bag!
This isn't theory; they use it for close air support because they fly those missions from high altitude. The main aircraft flying those missions is the F-16, and they also use the A-10 for it because the A-10 can't really do anything else, but it can certainly fly in protected airspace and launch air to ground missiles. It doesn't matter if you think that it can fly up close and just be brave if the mission commanders say it gets shot down in that case.
Stop trying to theorize and be a smarty. This is knowable, researchable stuff.
The employer documented the reason when they gave the pink slip. OK they always do that, easy.
Now where does that leave things? The employer has documented the reason. Weakly, but it exists. That means that if the employee wants to contest it, they have to also provide some sort of evidence; if there was an accusation of some sort right before the firing, then they might have it, but usually the employee would not have something that proves they were a great employee; I mean, they're not going to prove a negative, so they'd have to have some sort of positive evidence of the employers true intent.
That's the part you don't seem to understand; the employer doesn't have a bunch of documentation requirements beyond the exit interview, and if you to challenge what they said you have to prove that they're being dishonest; but by default, their testimony has the same presumption of honesty as anybody else. It is perfectly reasonable that the employer feels the employee was a poor performer, and the employee thinks they were doing a good enough job. That is actually expected, as if the employee had agreed they weren't doing a good enough job perhaps they would have put more effort in. It is almost guaranteed the employee disagrees, and yet, very few of these challenges are successful. That's the thing; this isn't theoretical. Go and ask an employment lawyer how good your odds are; without some sort of evidence that supports your claim, you have very very little chance of success. If you made a complaint against another employee right before they fired you, and you used the correct channels and documented everything, then you might have something.
Absent evidence to the contrary, what the employer says happened is what officially happened.
Something is keeping these stealth variants of current air frames from being deployed, and I'm curious to know what that is.
Because there is a huge amount of equipment packed into a bunch of small spaces. If you wanted to build a stealth trainer on an old airframe, sure. If you wanted to build a stealth version of the A-10 that is big and slow and uses a lot of fuel, you could do that too. If you want a high performance fighter aircraft, you're going to have to redesign it because what is good for aerodynamics is not the same as what is good for stealth and you just have to build the thing with a significantly different body type and balance. Even if it looks similar on the outside at the end.
Also, the blah-blah you read on the interwebs about the F-35, it is just a fad to be a hater. People in the military who listen to the BS hater stuff, they change their tune the first time they come out of a classified briefing on the program. Every time.
If you don't know enough about the technology to understand that all of it is late generation stuff that has undergone numerous iterations, then why ask for updating of existing technology? Not all types of machine have can have their fundamental design changed after construction, but that doesn't mean that building a new one isn't an act of updating the existing technology.
You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.
I'm not going to call them buffoons. I'm reluctant to call them all geniuses either. I will say that the vast majority of them will do the best they can with what they have. I will, and have, trust them with my life. I would like to see more updating of existing technology to go along with the acquisition of the new and shiny... or is it new and stealthy now?
I didn't say it would be doing ground attack, I said the F-35s would be doing ground attack and the F-22 would be shooting down SAMs; which is air to air. Most fighters don't really enjoy engaging SAMs after they've been launched, they prefer to strike them on the ground. You need really high quality stealth to mess around with that mission so that you don't just blow up right away if you miss a shot.
F-35s are more useful for air superiority than F-22s because you can put more of them in the air and air superiority is about complete denial of access. It doesn't require everything to be stealth, or to be high quality stealth; just having some aircraft with a low signature is huge tactical problem for anybody trying to challenge the airspace.
When you see in the news the the US and Japan are flying a joint mission near Korean airspace, you'll notice there is typically one (1) F-22 in the group. On an air superiority mission, it would be serving as escort for the rest of the fighters!
Most missions utilizing fighters don't need a super-double-badass fighter to go with them as escort, and so you only want to buy a few of those. You only want to use them when there is real risk of incoming missiles you might want to shoot down. Air to air isn't just shooting at fighters.
I remember shopping there one time and then saying, "Oh, that's why they call it Whole Paycheck" and going other places ever since. Their customers might actually not really care.
Check out how much higher their prices really are before you decide their customers care.
The government generally has a much more pragmatic attitude
Yeah, secure points of entry.
It is the engineer's fault because they don't have site security; but in a perfect world somebody else would have prevented the situation and he wouldn't have to be good at it.
Presumably a radio frequency engineer is doing QA on their implementation of the radio chip's reference design, so easily replaced. Secrecy is most of the job, the only reason to even do it in-house when production happens somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd statement, pink is nearly the national color of Japan!
I don't think a Japanese businessman is going to find a more macho color than cherry blossoms, I mean, get real.
Here is a picture of Softbank founder Masayoshi Son wearing a pink tie:
http://cfile10.uf.tistory.com/...
If you could get any of these guys to wear a company print T-shirt instead of a suit and tie, I'm sure they'd be fighting over who gets to wear Power Pink.
Deutsche Telekom (Parent company of T-Mobile USoA) has been trying to get rid of T-Mobile USoA for years
If you can read the summary, it says they refused to sell it, they insisted on being in control of the combined company.
Trying to get rid of it would mean they were happy to have Sprint control it as the party not controlling it will get more money. I mean, control has value, right? If you're getting a controlling share of voting stock, the other people are going to get extra non-voting stock to compensate. If you're wanting to get rid of it, then you come up with a cash-and-stock deal where the other company buys as much of the control as they have cash for! That's not at all even close to the situation here.
You seem to be importing a narrative that has nothing to do with the context. As for your fan fiction, lets just say you're obviously not an MBA; maybe it is some other genre after all?
But the merger did get thrown!
Deutch Telekom only has 3% more revenue than SoftBank, so they're close enough in size that whoever didn't get control of the combined company would be making a downhill move. But DT didn't throw it; Sprint is who threw.
gmail.
In the past we had to use imperfect spam filters. In 1999 I even missed an important email because it was a false-positive in spam! gmail never puts my real mail in spam, and very very little spam makes it through (maybe 1 per month I click on "spam")
Google search was really good when there was a search language, but now it just mixed keywords with no advanced use control at all. The only thing you can do in most cases is to creatively alter the keyword list; in the past there were a whole bunch of programmatic operators that made it powerful. The quality now, basically anybody doing it would produce similar results if they had the user volume to tune it against.
At least give them credit for innovation; instead of embrace and extend they extended and embraced!
Oracle and Sun both tried that and got laughed at, Google may have it figured out.
cat manifesto.txt > /dev/null
Yes, they did; they admitted that if websites host their own ads, it sucks even more than if they let google host google ads!
I'm glad you enjoyed the little talk they had they with you.
If you're not going to go whole-hog and measure a metric ton of horse shit every day to filter out the very small amount of source data implied by it, then yeah, you're best off just not believing anything.
If you disbelieve everything you're almost there. The problem is, people want to believe something, but they don't want to admit that everybody is full of shit and that it would be a huge amount of work just to figure out what was actually claimed, and what was implied through phrasing but wasn't actually part of the data. In the end if you put the work in, there is a small amount of moderate, dispassionate middle-of-the-road data available, and everything else is a bunch of shrill horseshit.
For me it is a hobby; I started reading the papers on a daily basis in 3rd grade. If you spend enough time at it, a lot of the lies become standard ones that the exact same talking heads spew both sides of depending on the politics of the day, and so the filters do have opportunities to improve over time. The only problem is, the hobby is more likely to interesting to people who credulously run down rabbit holes than to people who are comfortable declaring most of it to be bullshit day after day.
It is easy to say that everything is bullshit, it is harder to say, "They don't know, and neither do I!" The more natural human tendency is, "They don't know, so let me tell you!"
Exactly, only one side of the story has clickbait potential.
What saddens me about it is how awful the average slashdot oldtimer's data filter is, even after decades of information glut. They still just believe whatever stupid bullshit sounds like it would be vaguely truthy, or whichever asshole is willing to phrase things in a nasty way, with no consideration at all given to information theory, to the analysis of who actually even has the information that you want. If you can at least trim the horseshit down to the versions from people who would know, it helps a lot, but even that is too much to ask around here.
If they weren't ready for prime time, I don't think they'd be flying them in Korea right now, especially not in a bomber support role! When they fly some B-1s with a bunch of F-35s and a single F-22, obviously they trust it in combat even with current software. War could break out during those flights, it isn't just training. One F-22 isn't what you want protecting multiple B-1s.
Thank you, at least somebody can read around here!
Large bays is a big problem in a highly aerodynamic aircraft that already has the wrong body shape.
You don't seem to understand the concept that the shape of the aircraft, the balance front to back, the balance point of the thrust, those are important things. And you have to change the shape for stealth, because you can't just put big bays in the places what was convenient for non-stealth craft.
I know you're a lot smarter than any of the aerospace engineers at Boeing or GE, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a lot of experience.
The changes you describe would result in a stealth trainer with very little combat capabilities, it is a well-understood problem even in the civilian military aerospace reporting. Janes Defense Weekly has been reporting on the exact issues for something like 20 years!
Generals don't come out of classified briefings on the F-35 saying, "It might be a success in the long run if we abandon our mission goals and save the program." Instead they come out saying, "Wow, hey, now I know how exciting the future is!"
Right, right, that's what the derpers say on the internet. The problem is that if you look at actual missions, if you listen to commanders who are in charge of these missions in Iraq or elsewhere, what they will explain is that going slow and looking at the ground works in some situations, for example when you're trying to find armor on the ground in certain types of scenario. Basically, it used to be great until infantry had more MANPADs and even just RPGs. Once the enemy realized that if they practiced a lot they can hit not only helicopters but also A-10s, they started doing it. Again, go to the interviews with people from Iraq; not interviews with infantry, all they can testify to is the psychological benefit of having some hardware in physical proximity. Listen to the mission commanders; they don't fly the A-10s low like you imagine anymore, because they were getting shot down. Not because they're scared of getting shot down, but because they were getting direct engine hits from RPGs. The thing is a sitting duck against fairly light weapons once the enemy figures out which weapons to use and which parts of the plane are vulnerable; and the cat is out of the bag!
This isn't theory; they use it for close air support because they fly those missions from high altitude. The main aircraft flying those missions is the F-16, and they also use the A-10 for it because the A-10 can't really do anything else, but it can certainly fly in protected airspace and launch air to ground missiles. It doesn't matter if you think that it can fly up close and just be brave if the mission commanders say it gets shot down in that case.
Stop trying to theorize and be a smarty. This is knowable, researchable stuff.
Nope. I understood you, you're just wrong.
The employer documented the reason when they gave the pink slip. OK they always do that, easy.
Now where does that leave things? The employer has documented the reason. Weakly, but it exists. That means that if the employee wants to contest it, they have to also provide some sort of evidence; if there was an accusation of some sort right before the firing, then they might have it, but usually the employee would not have something that proves they were a great employee; I mean, they're not going to prove a negative, so they'd have to have some sort of positive evidence of the employers true intent.
That's the part you don't seem to understand; the employer doesn't have a bunch of documentation requirements beyond the exit interview, and if you to challenge what they said you have to prove that they're being dishonest; but by default, their testimony has the same presumption of honesty as anybody else. It is perfectly reasonable that the employer feels the employee was a poor performer, and the employee thinks they were doing a good enough job. That is actually expected, as if the employee had agreed they weren't doing a good enough job perhaps they would have put more effort in. It is almost guaranteed the employee disagrees, and yet, very few of these challenges are successful. That's the thing; this isn't theoretical. Go and ask an employment lawyer how good your odds are; without some sort of evidence that supports your claim, you have very very little chance of success. If you made a complaint against another employee right before they fired you, and you used the correct channels and documented everything, then you might have something.
Absent evidence to the contrary, what the employer says happened is what officially happened.
CNN is well known as a middle-of-the-road, trustworthy source.
You sound a like a nutter sheep. Bahahahahahaha little sheep bahahahahahaha! Just bleet out whatever the newsvertainment outlet told you to.
Something is keeping these stealth variants of current air frames from being deployed, and I'm curious to know what that is.
Because there is a huge amount of equipment packed into a bunch of small spaces. If you wanted to build a stealth trainer on an old airframe, sure. If you wanted to build a stealth version of the A-10 that is big and slow and uses a lot of fuel, you could do that too. If you want a high performance fighter aircraft, you're going to have to redesign it because what is good for aerodynamics is not the same as what is good for stealth and you just have to build the thing with a significantly different body type and balance. Even if it looks similar on the outside at the end.
Also, the blah-blah you read on the interwebs about the F-35, it is just a fad to be a hater. People in the military who listen to the BS hater stuff, they change their tune the first time they come out of a classified briefing on the program. Every time.
If you don't know enough about the technology to understand that all of it is late generation stuff that has undergone numerous iterations, then why ask for updating of existing technology? Not all types of machine have can have their fundamental design changed after construction, but that doesn't mean that building a new one isn't an act of updating the existing technology.
You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.
I'm not going to call them buffoons. I'm reluctant to call them all geniuses either. I will say that the vast majority of them will do the best they can with what they have. I will, and have, trust them with my life. I would like to see more updating of existing technology to go along with the acquisition of the new and shiny... or is it new and stealthy now?
I didn't say it would be doing ground attack, I said the F-35s would be doing ground attack and the F-22 would be shooting down SAMs; which is air to air. Most fighters don't really enjoy engaging SAMs after they've been launched, they prefer to strike them on the ground. You need really high quality stealth to mess around with that mission so that you don't just blow up right away if you miss a shot.
F-35s are more useful for air superiority than F-22s because you can put more of them in the air and air superiority is about complete denial of access. It doesn't require everything to be stealth, or to be high quality stealth; just having some aircraft with a low signature is huge tactical problem for anybody trying to challenge the airspace.
When you see in the news the the US and Japan are flying a joint mission near Korean airspace, you'll notice there is typically one (1) F-22 in the group. On an air superiority mission, it would be serving as escort for the rest of the fighters!
Most missions utilizing fighters don't need a super-double-badass fighter to go with them as escort, and so you only want to buy a few of those. You only want to use them when there is real risk of incoming missiles you might want to shoot down. Air to air isn't just shooting at fighters.
I remember shopping there one time and then saying, "Oh, that's why they call it Whole Paycheck" and going other places ever since. Their customers might actually not really care.
Check out how much higher their prices really are before you decide their customers care.
If she hasn't learned it now, maybe just make a note that not everybody can learn things.
Darn clouds! Stop beaming like that and rain or something.
I always fire people I like, too.
Slashdot can't even afford yellow pixels!
In Soviet Slashdot, press yellows you!
How many lessons does it take?
Seventy times seven. And they still don't learn.
I refuse to even sign NDAs, and even I would have fired the guy.
The government generally has a much more pragmatic attitude
Yeah, secure points of entry.
It is the engineer's fault because they don't have site security; but in a perfect world somebody else would have prevented the situation and he wouldn't have to be good at it.
Apple doesn't have important employees any more.
Presumably a radio frequency engineer is doing QA on their implementation of the radio chip's reference design, so easily replaced. Secrecy is most of the job, the only reason to even do it in-house when production happens somewhere else.