Especially as the gist of the theory is: anthropogenic global warming leading to climate change. (And the shift is sensible. If the global average temperature increase didn't lead to climate change, we wouldn't be that concerned with it).

That we don't use that mouthful all the time is no different than you lot calling para-acetylaminophenol, acetaminophen, and we calling it paracetamol. The full thing is just too much. It's just basically a name. The underlying "thing" is still the same. In both cases.

True. Those of us who were "there" remember when he didn't think it was that big a deal to develop the kernel using proprietary tools, esp. source code control systems (can you say "Bitkeeper"), and couldn't understand why everybody was whining about the risks.

We all know how that ended. It blew up all in the kernel developers faces. However, it also meant that he sat down and started writing git, and as a result we're all now better off than where we started.

So have faith. Either he's right, and systemd will not turn out to be that bad, or his faith in systemd will end in tears, and then, he'll sit down and write a new startup management system that will kick everybody else's collective asses!

In either case, we win! :-)

Oh.

I thought you sad "Homophones".

Nevermind. Back to discussing Youth in Asia.

The B-52 requires complete air superiority in the area that it operates because it can't hide from radar except by jamming, so just building a new version wouldn't really work. The B-1 has speed on its side (thought not as much as the original specs) and the B-2 has stealth. The tentatively named B-3 is supposed to replace all of the heavy bombers, though the B-2 will probably stick around for a few decades. That's a reasonable goal, unlike that of the F-35.

It's supposed to use mostly existing technologies instead of planning for advances as happened with (and expanded the cost and schedule of) the B-2, F-22, and F-35. Whether they can actually do that is a giant question mark, but the Air Force is allegedly targeting $500 million to $600 million per plane as the final cost.

I currently have a web radio transceiver front panel application that works on Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, Amazon Kindle Fire, under Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. No porting, no software installation. See blog.algoram.com for details of what I'm writing.

The one unsupported popular platform? iOS, because Safari doesn't have the function used to acquire the microphone in the web audio API (and perhaps doesn't have other parts of that API), and Apple insists on handicapping other browsers by forcing them to use Apple's rendering engine.

I don't have any answer other than "don't buy iOS until they fix it".

Someone needed to talk to Boeing's crew that handles the designs of the AH-1 and UH-1. Lots of parts commonality, increasing as time goes on, and good at their roles, but different shapes for different missions.

The Harrier can't meaningfully hover with a full weapons load, either, and it really only takes off vertically at air shows. STOVL is short for "short takeoff, vertical landing". They've been planning ramped takeoffs and vertical landings at sea from the beginning, just like the Harrier uses.

I'm not fond of the F-35, but don't ascribe features to its (at least as problematic) predecessor that aren't there.

No, because the F-16 was designed as a multi-role fighter and it did extremely well. When it was announced that both the Air Force and Navy would use it, there was concern because of memories of the F-4 (a good plane for its time, but certainly not without its problems) and the compromises it had. When it was announced that it would also replace the Harrier and was planned to become the most common plane in the military, that's when people started fearing the worst.

The main problem is the Marines wanting a replacement for the Harrier, something that can do STOL/STOVL operations, and that is completely under their control. The JSF was already under development, and the contractors said they could figure out how to make it fit the Marine requirements. What we got was a fighter that can't dogfight, a strike aircraft with a pitifully small payload, and the political impossibility of starting over from scratch.

One of the lessons that came out of this and the Zumwalt-class destroyer programs is that the military should stop trying to cram every feature into a program. While the proliferation of designs led to unwieldy logistics in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the attempts to simplify everything have resulted in a reduced overall capability and the need to extend the lifetimes of planes the new projects were meant to replace. The F-15 and F-16 will still be around for decades, and may form a larger part of the tactical strike platforms than the USAF would like to admit. The same will probably be the case with the F/A-18E against the Navy's F-35C.

Dedicated designs are the most efficient. Some of them turn out to be spectacular at other jobs. The F-15 was designed with the adage "not a pound for air-to-ground" and yet from it was developed the F-15E Strike Eagle, an extremely effective air-to-ground platform. Hopefully the military is listening when it goes trying to build its next platform, a replacement for the B-1, B-2, and B-52 expected to come online between 2035 and 2045.

Weddings are social occasions that may demand that even the most wanted people come out of hiding to participate. That doesn't excuse them being used as targets. It's just the reason they're chosen.

I'm neither a kid nor have I forgotten the space race and the political squabbling that accompanied it. I want SpaceX to succeed, but I also want Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin to succeed, and anyone else that can reshape the space launch industry.

But there are people who desperately want to see Elon Musk fail. For that to happen, Tesla and/or SpaceX must fail. These people will hunt for any little indicator that Musk has bitten off more than he could chew and gleefully let everyone know about it.

I'm well aware that there are those who wanted (and still want) NASA to fail. They see NASA as the embodiment of government bureaucracy, slow and inefficient especially when compared to companies like SpaceX, and so they want to get rid of it. NASA is that, but mostly because the missions that they work on tend to be those difficult to replace: some extremely expensive satellites, interplanetary probes, and manned missions. A telecomm satellite lost on launch will be replaced by insurance and the contracted company will build another one. A failed satellite or probe may never be rebuilt (had New Horizons been lost, the atmosphere would have frozen and precipitated out before another probe could reach it). A failed manned mission may result in loss of life. Mission success therefore has higher priority than are the case with most commercial missions.

The value of gold, silver and bitcoins is irrelevant if there are capital controls that only allow you to with â60/day - how are you going to buy them? If you could get all you hands on your money...