I wonder what a "respectful and peaceful" orbit is? Geostationary?
I wonder what a "respectful and peaceful" orbit is? Geostationary?
GitHub doesn't have anyone posting their dinner.
Read the damn article. It said that google is fine to continue indexing the list, and to show it in search results.
What isn't fine, according to the EU, is if a search for "Mr X" continues to list search results that relate to incorrect or inaccurate information about him.
It's fine for a search about censorship or "right-to-be-forgotten" to turn up the censor list. It's just not okay for a search about "Mr X".
This seems really pretty darn reasonable!
20% is random fluctuation. Statistically, over two to three decades, NO ONE beats the market average.
So this payment structure is guaranteed to do worse in the long run, by paying out large bonuses in the "fluke" years.
My solution was to buy an Apple Airport Extreme base station. That's given me rock solid reliability, and it auti-updates.
Now I dislike Apple stuff in general. Will never have an iPhone. Only grudgingly bought a MacBook because I wanted to learn the Swift programming language. Used a Buffalo router with Tomato firmware.
Nevertheless, the Airport Extreme base station has never once failed. My old Tomato would sometimes crap out when too many people were doing Skype or RemoteDesktop or VPN or torrent or something. But the airport has never failed once in over two years.
I think that Airport is the Cisco reliability for normal consumers.
PS. I still use Tomato for routing since it allows loop back http. I just use the airport for wifi.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.
Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.
The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.
Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.
What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.
And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.
I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.
I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.
But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.
Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"
The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.
But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.
Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.
This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.
That's stupid. A gentle cycle is as much exertion as a gentle walk. Except you sweat less from the cycle because it takes less energy for a given distance
A vigorous cycle is as much exertion as a vigorous run.
There's noting magical about cycling that makes you sweat more.
I understand the tradeoffs. It looks like a straightforward compromise between lower latency browsing, and privacy concerns. As long as they allow for opt-out (which they do) I think they made the right call.
Privacy? You've already decided to share which page you're looking at. That's the "mile". Now it goes an extra inch and says where your attention is focused.
An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis
Problem is that catharsis is a literary and theater concept -- not one rooted in science or human psychology.
This article is about a waste of time. Microsoft has developed an encryption method resistant to quantum computers, it claims. Alright? What is that method? How does it differ from current encryption techniques? Why is that well suited to encrypting against quantum computers? How did you come to that conclusion, given that you don't have one to test against? Are we just supposed to believe Microsoft when they say "Trust us, this is secure"?
No of course not. You're meant to read this article, understand that it's an example of bad science journalism, and because of your innate geekiness and intellectual curiosity you should use the power of Google or Bing to find the scientific research in question:
So you are fine with the concept of already earned money and assets being taxed time and again? Because that's what you are pushing when you bring wealth into the discussion.
I hadn't thought if it before you put it this way -- but yes, that sounds like a brilliant idea! If we shift the taxes away from things that produce value to society (i.e. income) and onto things that don't produce value (i.e. possessing wealth) then we'd be removing a perverse incentive and improving the nation's economy. Good idea.
And how, exactly, does one program a robot to be compassionate or empathetic? Can emotion be reduced to a few simple formulas, some generic algorithms? I'm not convinced.
Yes it basically can be reduced to a few simple formulas. Have you ever been to couple's counselling or the like? The rules are very simple. You listen to what someone says. The only questions you ask are ones that help you understand the spirit of what they're saying. When they're done you repeat back "I heard you tell me that XYZ" in your own words as faithfully as possible. Hey presto, empathy and social connection.
It sounds corny but it works incredibly well at (1) helping the other person feel understood, (2) changing your own mental approach so you really do understand them better in a good way.
It also works really well in a professional setting, in meetings.
It's also enabled by default
When you connect to a network, there's a checkbox for "do you want to share it", and this checkbox is the ONLY checkbox you're asked about. Not hidden away or something.
If "enabled by default" means "prompted for every single time", then you have a different notion of "default" from everyone else. The only thing that's enabled by default is the initial state of the checkbox in the place where it prompts you. You still see the checkbox plainly, and you still have to click OK.
"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll