Oh, Khyber, Khyber... when will stop pretending to know things? It's "off the shelf" in the sense that they didn't have to design anything... they just grabbed an existing microcontroller design and added an extra module or two to it. tibit didn't say that it was cheaper because it's less complex; he said it's cheaper because, "Whoever packages it didn't have to do all the silicon and driver R&D." Just like there are software libraries that a software developer can grab and use without having to do a lot of work, there are hardware libraries that hardware designers can grab and use without having to do a lot of work. You need to do some AES encryption? No need to design that yourself; grab an AES core. You need to do some low-pass digital filtering? Get a filter core. There's even a site that has open-source hardware cores you can use: OpenCores

Geez how the press gets this sort of thing so wrong. It's not a tank, it's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). It's lightly armored against small arms and small-bore auto-cannon rounds, not against ATGMs, tank main guns, or RPGs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The weight at 34 tonnes is much less than that of any current front-line tank (according to Wikipedia the Challenger 2 is 62.5 tonnes, almost double the Scout SV). It is a lot heavier than most current IFV's (e.g., the German Marder at 28 tonnes or BMP-3 at 18.7 tonnes), but that may not be such a good thing. It makes strategic mobility more of a problem and ensures that the Scout SV can't swim across rivers by itself.

Some reporter just cut and pasted from the press release. Feh!

--Paul

Yawn.

No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.

I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.

Yes

To which Ubuntu forum users massively agreed that this would make a great release name !

I'd say that depends on what you consider "reading and writing". For Westerners, Mandarin is difficult to speak and listen to because of the tones--it takes a lot of practice for them to pronounce the tones properly, and also a lot of practice to distinguish the tones. Reading and writing is difficult because of the large number of characters that need to be memorized. However, if you're allowed to have computer assistance, reading and writing becomes much easier; I'd say easier than speaking and listening. You can easily look up a word in an online dictionary, and when typing, the IME will present you a list of possible characters, and you choose the one you want. The latter is a huge simplification, since you don't have to remember exactly how to write a character; you just need to have a general idea of what it looks like, and the IME will take care of the details. This is even affecting the current generation of Chinese people... it's not uncommon for even a college-educated person to draw a blank on how to hand-write a character: "Character Amnesia"

Yes, my view of things is that we should rely on reason and evidence. Yours is that we should rely on fallacies and innuendo.

In any event, I think we can agree the AC is a moron.

I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

Ad hominem.

Non sequitur.

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

False.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easily. They are not, however, as pro-capitalist as I am, or Scott Walker is, etc.