I think you mistook my statement and saw slight where there was none intended. I suspect that was due to my verbiage and not being entirely clear. I've been to AR and like it and the people just fine. You'll note, I did not say they were stupid - I said the opposite. However, if the world were your oyster (so to speak) and you could go anywhere, had no ties with the area, probably couldn't even find the Ozarks on a map, and wanted to move - would you *really* pick AR and working for Tyson?
By the way, the way you can smell the plant for miles is always amusing. It smells like, to me, a chicken in the oven. Makes me hungry as hell.
I'm pretty sure they could have gone on TV, said the US nuked our islands, and gotten free admission to *any* country. They certainly deserve US citizenship. See, I can live anywhere on this planet I want - within reason, I probably can't live in Antarctica. I live in the US - by choice. I live here because this is where my family and history is and because I don't want to run from the problems. If I did not live here, I would not come here by choice.
True. They certainly do deserve such. IIRC we bombed the ever living hell out of a few of their islands. I probably should have prefaced my statement with them coming to the US at all. I mean, if you get to pick anywhere... See, I kind of figure that they could have gone on television and said, "The US sucks, they bombed the hell out of us with nukes" and *any* country would have jumped on the opportunity to accept them as refugees. But they picked the Ozarks? That baffles the hell out of me. I'm going to go down there and find out what the hell is going on. Maybe. I'm in DC and will be here for a couple of weeks.
Three or four years ago and probably again within the next couple of months as I'm on the road and down in DC already. Anyhow, no - I'd expect to see them in Australia or somewhere in Europe or maybe Eurasia or similar. The Ozarks seems a very odd space for them to settle. You may be seeing slight where none is intended. I'd have felt it just as odd had it been somewhere in the NE, MW, or NW. Hell, I'd have felt it odd anywhere in the US except maybe Hawaii.
Yeah, I gotta get that badge on AU. I've got the reputation for it (I don't do it for points - I do it to learn and spend most of my time there asking questions in the comments trying to tease out the problem and don't care enough to write out solutions often - someone comes along and does it for me) so that's not a problem. I can also earn more points with editing and whatnot. Meh... I should still get the badge. They're Pokebadges. Gotta catch 'em all.
I'd have expected them to go to Australia or maybe somewhere in Southern Europe or even parts of Eurasia. The Ozarks? It just strikes me as an odd choice - I've been to the Ozarks but I've never been to the Marshall Islands. I've read a bit about them and seen a few documentaries but I've never felt the urge to go.
That too... I think the entire article is probably a stretch for reasons other than they had a desire to not live on an isolated island without the benefits of modernity (which probably includes safety) and moved to where they had familiar people and jobs. It is tempting to read the article but I have my pride. If it's got pictures then I'd see fit to view those infographics but I'm guessing it probably doesn't so I'll skip giving them the traffic. Ah well...
Now, I've traveled pretty extensively - and have enjoyed my time in Arkansas quite a bunch. But... And you knew there must be a but... I can't really imagine the hardship if you're moving to the Ozarks for a "better education." This might seem like a slam against the Ozarks and, indeed, it might be but the reality is that they're not stupid - it's that I just don't think of the Ozarks when I think of where to send people for a "better education."
Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII. The climate part I get... But, of all the places to seek in the US for "better education" that seems a bit of a stretch. I'm thinking it was cheap living, ready jobs at Tyson, family, and a pre-existing culture base that was similar due to their historical roots. Hmm... I suspect "education" makes a better sound bite but damned if I'm gonna read the article - I'm no heretic.
There are some nice American vehicles. I own a really stupidly large number of vehicles (it's my hobby and a long-winded story) and some of them are American-made. Some of my favorites are American but I have my quirks. I have a 1973 Dodge Dart and, from that same year, a Jeep Wagoneer with the factory PTO. I own a few American trucks. I'm in the market for an HMMWV and I want an Oshkosh of some type before I die (they will not sell me an MRAP even if I pay extra - I have asked, so I'll probably end up with one of their smaller firefighting vehicle).
And some of the US' traditional quality is coming around again. I'm likely to purchase a Tesla this summer - if they get to the promised 500 mile/charge range. There are some new Fords (besides their truck line) that are quite acceptable for the price. Years ago, after my divorce, I was a happy Viper owner until my kids decided they wanted to live with Dad because he had the cooler toys (and mommy was a drunken slut, but I digress). I'd have to either make a call or go home but I'm pretty sure I own a Toyota that was made in the US. I hear that Dodge and Chevy have improved a little. Well, for very small definitions of improved.
They do make, all three of them, a fairly decent SUV but that's largely because there really aren't a whole lot of alternative choices in the US (I do like old Land Rovers and Range Rovers). I do miss the International Scout and I've yet to find one at a price that I'm willing to pay and in the shape I'm willing to accept and have repaired. I like them but not enough to deal with a headache.
Anyhow, from about 1975 to 1995 and I'd agree 100%. After that? Well, I'd agree but to a lesser percent. Prior to that? I'd disagree. Well, I might expand it to about 1972 and 1997. So, I can't entirely agree.
No no no... The SO/SE help files to see that the dupes are linked to the questions which they duplicate. I've never seen one marked as a duplicate in error but I suspect there are some due to humans making errors but if it's closed as a duplicate then there's a link to the original or best suited question. Sometimes questions aren't marked as duplicates as nobody notices so you end up with some duplicated content which means you may find that the newer question has better answers.
From what I've seen, concerning pricing, it's about average increases. I've a very advanced "infotainment" (that I don't use, really), advanced pedestrian detection and night vision - including IR use, etc. Additionally, I've got 450 ponies (it's the dual turbo) and the sport package, etc. Those weren't options on my older model (as far as I know) and this one was 'bespoke."
If I wanted a status item then I'd have bought a status symbol. This is pretty tame looking and it only gets "the look" from car buffs - which is why I bought it. So, you might be on to something there - it could be a status symbol but only to those who know anything about the model. You'd not think that the total price was about 120k if you saw it on the corner. Starting it up or giving it some gas may give an indication of this.
However, they've engineered great products and I pay for that. I pay for the advanced tech and the tech is new enough that it's not really impacted by economies of scale to a great degree. Some of it is exclusive and may never be repeated. That's part of the cost. (Not sure if I'm wording this well. I'm a bit distracted. I get to go to a museum today, one I've not been to in years.)
To wit, is it stagnating or just not progressing as fast as you're expecting? I do see your point about chips but I don't know where battery tech falls on the overall development scales and if we've reached size limits or have just decided that we want everything miniaturized.
That's kind of what I was thinking - I wasn't sure that their comment was even salient but I'm not a crypto-geek and I knew that headers have pretty much always contained repeatable data and that it's not made a difference (AFAIK) so far. I probably should have phrased it better. I do know, by grace of having to learn a bunch, some basic networking but not a lot of crypto - enough to implement it if needed. I understand things like SYN and ACK, UDP, etc... I did not have the budget to hire a network admin (lots of years ago) and spent lots of time learning about it. I think the important thing I learned was to drop Cisco and go Juniper. *nods* But, I digress.
I think that people just seem to overlook that newer $devices are sometimes much more expensive than their historical levels simply because they contain technology (not just computers) that was simply unavailable or was prohibitively expensive at earlier times. An example might be a high-end luxury car. The car I have with me is a 6-series from BMW and it was more expensive than my last purchase by a large margin. Why? It has features that simply weren't reasonable, or possible, when I last bought a similar model from that company.
Using space technology, at least for the foreseeable future, it's going to be more expensive - like you stated. The reality is that we're going to want to keep stuffing new tech into them as this is the most likely way to achieve bang for the buck. It's not as if we've got daily missions to space for industrial purposes driving the costs down or not needing the latest technology or developing area-specific tech.
Ah well... I changed location over the weekend so I have the slow-and-stupids still. It took me a few minutes to realize what the gist was and I sat here like a confused dog (head even cocked sideways). I mention this because the sometimes-mentioned new young lady hasn't been able to travel much and we're in D.C. and will be visiting the Smithsonian (and a few more touristy places) over the next few weeks and we'll be spending some time at the National Air and Space Museum today and, perhaps, tomorrow. Next week, probably, we'll take a trip down to VA to get to the second one.
Yup. I was thinking of how to approach this as a legal argument. That's where I'd start. The EULA shouldn't actually allow a parent to sign away the copyrights on the works of their children - regardless of what they signed. It should not be legally binding. Copyright can come in handy. I'd go after it in this direction but then the parents assume partial liability (potentially). My hope is that everyone learns a lesson but, ya know, I'm sometimes a deluded idealist.
Nah, I'm not that smart. It's also not nearly so insightful. Well, maybe, but then I'd have to give you a hint. It is a topical message and there is, indeed, a very open message in there and it's not even remotely hidden if you know what to look for. Given Slashdot user's typical traits, I'd think it'd be obvious but only in hindsight.
Should I remember (or get a notification on here) then I'll share the "hidden" message or at least some hint. *nods*
The linked PDFs to items tell you enough information to Google from there. One lady, below, had a bunch of trophies. It turned out that it's being auctioned to pay off the 57 million USD she embezzled. If I were into trophies then I'd consider that. The house looks pretty nice - I didn't find that up for auction.
If that's true then, AFAIK, headers have always had some form of constant and, if not, there's consistent content in the individual packets that identify things like what stream they belong to.
Just 'cause it's open doesn't mean someone's gonna notice. For example, look at this text that I'm typing now (and still typing) and see if you can spot the hidden message. It's open, can you find it? Can't make the association? No? Well, here's some more words to make it finish - consider this random text.
Eisenhower also, likely, knew that we weren't as far behind as the populous believed. One could say what we weren't even really "behind" so much as we were concentrating on different aspects. Not long after Operation Paperclip, we were able to put stuff *in* space but we were concentrating more on things like navigation, processing, accuracy, and reliability.
Another interesting aside, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, Yuri didn't actually do much in the way of piloting his craft. It was controlled from the ground while we wanted things to be able to be controlled from the craft (making more accurate munitions - for example). A few documentaries (hard to get without a bit of bias) mention this as well as a big indicator being that the USSR did not announce things ahead of time because they weren't sure they'd work and we still don't know how many failures they did have (up to and including some group of Soviets who were lost in space maybe).
Some thought may be given to why it was a race at all, beyond the weapons aspect. A fearful group is easier to control and beer and circuses goes a long ways towards keeping people content. So much that changes seems to remain the same.
Inflation isn't that high but there are lots of costs associated with such projects. These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.
That does NOT negate your point about it being too pricey. It just means that the rate would almost certainly exceed inflation because they're not even similar products except they both float and launch planes - not even the planes are the same in many cases. Add in the amortized design changes and, yeah, it's gonna be more costly - tech that we have now simply was not available then. It is still, of course, too damned expensive because, honestly, we've got enough of 'em already and nobody else can even remotely compete with such a class.
We've won... We can trickle along with moderate improvements at much lower cost, at a decreased level of alertness, and be fine. Our military has lots of problems but our Navy is, very much so, far above any other blue-water force on the planet. Bar none.
That said, there's no real comparison between the two types of carriers. Even if we left the design largely the same, the amount of tech that was unavailable for prior inclusion would make it more expensive by default.
Finally, I wonder if the Russians are accepting anonymous donations? I'd throw a few bucks there way. I like space and I like Russia. I've donated to NASA before (I'll skip the novella) and that made me feel pretty good. Donating to Russia would be even more meaningful as they're probably able to stretch the Rubles further even after their administration takes their cut.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mistook my statement and saw slight where there was none intended. I suspect that was due to my verbiage and not being entirely clear. I've been to AR and like it and the people just fine. You'll note, I did not say they were stupid - I said the opposite. However, if the world were your oyster (so to speak) and you could go anywhere, had no ties with the area, probably couldn't even find the Ozarks on a map, and wanted to move - would you *really* pick AR and working for Tyson?
By the way, the way you can smell the plant for miles is always amusing. It smells like, to me, a chicken in the oven. Makes me hungry as hell.
I'm pretty sure they could have gone on TV, said the US nuked our islands, and gotten free admission to *any* country. They certainly deserve US citizenship. See, I can live anywhere on this planet I want - within reason, I probably can't live in Antarctica. I live in the US - by choice. I live here because this is where my family and history is and because I don't want to run from the problems. If I did not live here, I would not come here by choice.
True. They certainly do deserve such. IIRC we bombed the ever living hell out of a few of their islands. I probably should have prefaced my statement with them coming to the US at all. I mean, if you get to pick anywhere... See, I kind of figure that they could have gone on television and said, "The US sucks, they bombed the hell out of us with nukes" and *any* country would have jumped on the opportunity to accept them as refugees. But they picked the Ozarks? That baffles the hell out of me. I'm going to go down there and find out what the hell is going on. Maybe. I'm in DC and will be here for a couple of weeks.
Three or four years ago and probably again within the next couple of months as I'm on the road and down in DC already. Anyhow, no - I'd expect to see them in Australia or somewhere in Europe or maybe Eurasia or similar. The Ozarks seems a very odd space for them to settle. You may be seeing slight where none is intended. I'd have felt it just as odd had it been somewhere in the NE, MW, or NW. Hell, I'd have felt it odd anywhere in the US except maybe Hawaii.
Yeah, I gotta get that badge on AU. I've got the reputation for it (I don't do it for points - I do it to learn and spend most of my time there asking questions in the comments trying to tease out the problem and don't care enough to write out solutions often - someone comes along and does it for me) so that's not a problem. I can also earn more points with editing and whatnot. Meh... I should still get the badge. They're Pokebadges. Gotta catch 'em all.
I'd have expected them to go to Australia or maybe somewhere in Southern Europe or even parts of Eurasia. The Ozarks? It just strikes me as an odd choice - I've been to the Ozarks but I've never been to the Marshall Islands. I've read a bit about them and seen a few documentaries but I've never felt the urge to go.
That too... I think the entire article is probably a stretch for reasons other than they had a desire to not live on an isolated island without the benefits of modernity (which probably includes safety) and moved to where they had familiar people and jobs. It is tempting to read the article but I have my pride. If it's got pictures then I'd see fit to view those infographics but I'm guessing it probably doesn't so I'll skip giving them the traffic. Ah well...
Now, I've traveled pretty extensively - and have enjoyed my time in Arkansas quite a bunch. But... And you knew there must be a but... I can't really imagine the hardship if you're moving to the Ozarks for a "better education." This might seem like a slam against the Ozarks and, indeed, it might be but the reality is that they're not stupid - it's that I just don't think of the Ozarks when I think of where to send people for a "better education."
Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII. The climate part I get... But, of all the places to seek in the US for "better education" that seems a bit of a stretch. I'm thinking it was cheap living, ready jobs at Tyson, family, and a pre-existing culture base that was similar due to their historical roots. Hmm... I suspect "education" makes a better sound bite but damned if I'm gonna read the article - I'm no heretic.
There are some nice American vehicles. I own a really stupidly large number of vehicles (it's my hobby and a long-winded story) and some of them are American-made. Some of my favorites are American but I have my quirks. I have a 1973 Dodge Dart and, from that same year, a Jeep Wagoneer with the factory PTO. I own a few American trucks. I'm in the market for an HMMWV and I want an Oshkosh of some type before I die (they will not sell me an MRAP even if I pay extra - I have asked, so I'll probably end up with one of their smaller firefighting vehicle).
And some of the US' traditional quality is coming around again. I'm likely to purchase a Tesla this summer - if they get to the promised 500 mile/charge range. There are some new Fords (besides their truck line) that are quite acceptable for the price. Years ago, after my divorce, I was a happy Viper owner until my kids decided they wanted to live with Dad because he had the cooler toys (and mommy was a drunken slut, but I digress). I'd have to either make a call or go home but I'm pretty sure I own a Toyota that was made in the US. I hear that Dodge and Chevy have improved a little. Well, for very small definitions of improved.
They do make, all three of them, a fairly decent SUV but that's largely because there really aren't a whole lot of alternative choices in the US (I do like old Land Rovers and Range Rovers). I do miss the International Scout and I've yet to find one at a price that I'm willing to pay and in the shape I'm willing to accept and have repaired. I like them but not enough to deal with a headache.
Anyhow, from about 1975 to 1995 and I'd agree 100%. After that? Well, I'd agree but to a lesser percent. Prior to that? I'd disagree. Well, I might expand it to about 1972 and 1997. So, I can't entirely agree.
No no no... The SO/SE help files to see that the dupes are linked to the questions which they duplicate. I've never seen one marked as a duplicate in error but I suspect there are some due to humans making errors but if it's closed as a duplicate then there's a link to the original or best suited question. Sometimes questions aren't marked as duplicates as nobody notices so you end up with some duplicated content which means you may find that the newer question has better answers.
From what I've seen, concerning pricing, it's about average increases. I've a very advanced "infotainment" (that I don't use, really), advanced pedestrian detection and night vision - including IR use, etc. Additionally, I've got 450 ponies (it's the dual turbo) and the sport package, etc. Those weren't options on my older model (as far as I know) and this one was 'bespoke."
If I wanted a status item then I'd have bought a status symbol. This is pretty tame looking and it only gets "the look" from car buffs - which is why I bought it. So, you might be on to something there - it could be a status symbol but only to those who know anything about the model. You'd not think that the total price was about 120k if you saw it on the corner. Starting it up or giving it some gas may give an indication of this.
However, they've engineered great products and I pay for that. I pay for the advanced tech and the tech is new enough that it's not really impacted by economies of scale to a great degree. Some of it is exclusive and may never be repeated. That's part of the cost. (Not sure if I'm wording this well. I'm a bit distracted. I get to go to a museum today, one I've not been to in years.)
Don't forget graft. That's surely in the budget too.
To wit, is it stagnating or just not progressing as fast as you're expecting? I do see your point about chips but I don't know where battery tech falls on the overall development scales and if we've reached size limits or have just decided that we want everything miniaturized.
That's kind of what I was thinking - I wasn't sure that their comment was even salient but I'm not a crypto-geek and I knew that headers have pretty much always contained repeatable data and that it's not made a difference (AFAIK) so far. I probably should have phrased it better. I do know, by grace of having to learn a bunch, some basic networking but not a lot of crypto - enough to implement it if needed. I understand things like SYN and ACK, UDP, etc... I did not have the budget to hire a network admin (lots of years ago) and spent lots of time learning about it. I think the important thing I learned was to drop Cisco and go Juniper. *nods* But, I digress.
I think that people just seem to overlook that newer $devices are sometimes much more expensive than their historical levels simply because they contain technology (not just computers) that was simply unavailable or was prohibitively expensive at earlier times. An example might be a high-end luxury car. The car I have with me is a 6-series from BMW and it was more expensive than my last purchase by a large margin. Why? It has features that simply weren't reasonable, or possible, when I last bought a similar model from that company.
Using space technology, at least for the foreseeable future, it's going to be more expensive - like you stated. The reality is that we're going to want to keep stuffing new tech into them as this is the most likely way to achieve bang for the buck. It's not as if we've got daily missions to space for industrial purposes driving the costs down or not needing the latest technology or developing area-specific tech.
Ah well... I changed location over the weekend so I have the slow-and-stupids still. It took me a few minutes to realize what the gist was and I sat here like a confused dog (head even cocked sideways). I mention this because the sometimes-mentioned new young lady hasn't been able to travel much and we're in D.C. and will be visiting the Smithsonian (and a few more touristy places) over the next few weeks and we'll be spending some time at the National Air and Space Museum today and, perhaps, tomorrow. Next week, probably, we'll take a trip down to VA to get to the second one.
Yup. I was thinking of how to approach this as a legal argument. That's where I'd start. The EULA shouldn't actually allow a parent to sign away the copyrights on the works of their children - regardless of what they signed. It should not be legally binding. Copyright can come in handy. I'd go after it in this direction but then the parents assume partial liability (potentially). My hope is that everyone learns a lesson but, ya know, I'm sometimes a deluded idealist.
Thanks.
I figure it was more about control and, out of that, comes funding.
Nah, I'm not that smart. It's also not nearly so insightful. Well, maybe, but then I'd have to give you a hint. It is a topical message and there is, indeed, a very open message in there and it's not even remotely hidden if you know what to look for. Given Slashdot user's typical traits, I'd think it'd be obvious but only in hindsight.
Should I remember (or get a notification on here) then I'll share the "hidden" message or at least some hint. *nods*
The linked PDFs to items tell you enough information to Google from there. One lady, below, had a bunch of trophies. It turned out that it's being auctioned to pay off the 57 million USD she embezzled. If I were into trophies then I'd consider that. The house looks pretty nice - I didn't find that up for auction.
Not everything follows Moore's Law. That and they can include *more* tech. We're still being ripped off but not as much as one might think.
If that's true then, AFAIK, headers have always had some form of constant and, if not, there's consistent content in the individual packets that identify things like what stream they belong to.
Just 'cause it's open doesn't mean someone's gonna notice. For example, look at this text that I'm typing now (and still typing) and see if you can spot the hidden message. It's open, can you find it? Can't make the association? No? Well, here's some more words to make it finish - consider this random text.
Eisenhower also, likely, knew that we weren't as far behind as the populous believed. One could say what we weren't even really "behind" so much as we were concentrating on different aspects. Not long after Operation Paperclip, we were able to put stuff *in* space but we were concentrating more on things like navigation, processing, accuracy, and reliability.
Another interesting aside, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, Yuri didn't actually do much in the way of piloting his craft. It was controlled from the ground while we wanted things to be able to be controlled from the craft (making more accurate munitions - for example). A few documentaries (hard to get without a bit of bias) mention this as well as a big indicator being that the USSR did not announce things ahead of time because they weren't sure they'd work and we still don't know how many failures they did have (up to and including some group of Soviets who were lost in space maybe).
Some thought may be given to why it was a race at all, beyond the weapons aspect. A fearful group is easier to control and beer and circuses goes a long ways towards keeping people content. So much that changes seems to remain the same.
Inflation isn't that high but there are lots of costs associated with such projects. These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.
That does NOT negate your point about it being too pricey. It just means that the rate would almost certainly exceed inflation because they're not even similar products except they both float and launch planes - not even the planes are the same in many cases. Add in the amortized design changes and, yeah, it's gonna be more costly - tech that we have now simply was not available then. It is still, of course, too damned expensive because, honestly, we've got enough of 'em already and nobody else can even remotely compete with such a class.
We've won... We can trickle along with moderate improvements at much lower cost, at a decreased level of alertness, and be fine. Our military has lots of problems but our Navy is, very much so, far above any other blue-water force on the planet. Bar none.
That said, there's no real comparison between the two types of carriers. Even if we left the design largely the same, the amount of tech that was unavailable for prior inclusion would make it more expensive by default.
Finally, I wonder if the Russians are accepting anonymous donations? I'd throw a few bucks there way. I like space and I like Russia. I've donated to NASA before (I'll skip the novella) and that made me feel pretty good. Donating to Russia would be even more meaningful as they're probably able to stretch the Rubles further even after their administration takes their cut.