Why bother defending the launch ship? If you buy a container ship near the end of it's life and fill it with ISO containers with a couple of missile containers on top you can easily get close enough to a target without looking suspicious. Once you have fired all the missiles at a target it doesn't matter if someone sinks the expendable container ship. If you can afford to buy a modern missile system the cost of an old expendable container ship should not pose any real problems. You even get plausible deniability as a bonus.
Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it.
This is an interesting question.
It seems unlikely that the US is going to face an opponent of equivalent size and military capability in the foreseeable future. States such as Iraq that fight the US in a conventional war will be rapidly beaten by the US military, however the US faces the possibility of war with non state enemies in the near to medium future. The failure to defeat Al Qaeda can be seen as an example of this. If future foes are not affiliated with any one obvious state just what is the US going to fire missiles at? If future enemies are operating from several countries at once is the US going to start wars with all of them?
Combatants from the last century were easy to spot because they mainly dressed in combat fatigues and used equipment and vehicles that were obviously military in nature. Now the US faces asymmetric warfare techniques such as IED's, car bombs, suicidal aircraft hijacks and crude biological attacks their military seems more and more impotent. The development of missile systems such as the new Club K container missile system is going to make it much harder for the US to find a target for these new fast missile systems as it will not be obvious who launched them.
The problem comes when your colonists refuse to pay your outrageous taxes which are paying for all those wars, dump your tea into a harbour and declare independence. Your colonists are likely to be at a similar military level to you and difficult to defeat.
Yeah, when I was a kid, flying was an adventure and a lot of fun. Now it's a PITA. It's been several years since I seriously considered a vacation that involved flying. I'd rather drive. If I have to fly to do it, odds are I'm not going to do it.
I feel the same way and I live in Europe. Driving from London to the French Alps, crossing the English channel on a ferry takes about the same time as flying there does. This is despite the actual flying bit lasting only an hour or so. The airline industry and governments have taken a fast and efficient form of travel and comprehensively fucked it over the years with security theatre and air industry processes. The cost is roughly equivalent to driving there even with European road fuel tax!
Driving has the advantage that you can choose to go stop where you like and travel via places you simply would not go when travelling by air. From my perspective driving offers lots more benefits for European journeys than air travel.
How long will it before the airlines worldwide are lobbying for security restrictions to be removed as it affects business?
In the end, it is not just merely displaying the ads that makes money, but the complex dynamics of the market, its interaction with potential customers, and the ability to influence their behaviour.
Which makes the advertisers insistence on displaying blinking noisy crap on a technical site whose audience has a hair trigger on Adblock all the more bizarre. While the article is mainly Ars whining, most commentary on this issue misses the point that both the advertisers and Ars would make more money if the advertisers were a little more intelligent about what type of ad they display to specific audiences. I keep hearing about the death of online advertising, but as Google has shown the market can be very healthy indeed if one pays attention to the audience.
Perhaps the next few successful ad startups will be those that can place ads while resisting the natural proclivities of the ad agency and client to gravitate towards garish and overbearing. I can only hope so.
I've been thinking a lot recently about whether predatory / monopolistic behaviour is *ever* a good idea.
Monopolistic behavior is a great idea if you are the CEO of a public company. All your average CEO has to do is really push short term results hard to keep quarterly earnings obsessed Wall Street happy. The CEO usually has an exit strategy of quit with a large golden handshake plus large pension, then rinse and repeat until retirement in the Bahamas. If the company goes tits up because of this strategy who cares. Wall street will have sold the shares at a high price to suckers long before the share price collapses and the CEO will be working elsewhere with a track record of large profits during his/her past employment. Employees and customers are just collateral damage.
Should we recreate the award given to Slartibartfast for Norway too?
None of those articles talk seriously about the Labour party splitting in two, only some MPs defecting. I doubt much will come of it though, as defecting to the Lib Dems is basically ensuring you have no place in the next or any government in the foreseeable future. Ashdown's speculation is just that.
You are correct that none of the articles provide any evidence that Labour will fragment into separate factions, I simply wanted to point out that the suggestion originated in the broadsheets. It is possible that some Labour MP's will defect to the Liberals if Labour lose at the next general election. Labour defections have happened in the past.
This is classic newspaper tactics. The Mail is by far the worst for it. Every edition has reader's letters starting "If the government does such-and-such..." when the government has no plans to do such-and-such, and has often never even hinted at even considering such-and-such.
Indeed. With Gordon Brown appearing to be both unpopular and ineffective this is behaviour that all the UK newspapers are indulging in, not just the Daily Mail. I will concede that the Mail is one of the worst at this and should not be considered a quality news source.
More hyperbole. Before the credit crunch spending was fairly low compared to other nations, and now it's being done to lessen the effects of the recession by stimulating the economy with cash injections (e.g. car scappage scheme) and government projects (building contracts etc). Of course a lot went to prop up the banks, but people talk about that as if it was a free hand-out. We own those banks now and it's hard to imagine a situation so catastrophic that we wouldn't get out investment back with interest at some point in the medium term.
Hyperbole, really?. I think I was being quite restrained. Comparing UK government spending levels to other nations is not useful. Others have different population levels, GDP and citizen expectations. What is useful is comparing spending to GDP, the good old fashioned can we afford it metric. Why not take a look at the ever amusing (and full of hyperbole) Buring our Money blog. The articles in the debt category should convey a sense of the debt disaster Labours spending has built up with far more eloquence than I have time for here. In case you were wondering where it all goes here is the handy Guardian (PDF) chart of government spending.
The government could have handled the bank bailouts considerably better. I really liked the good bank idea I read about in the FT. This idea would have left the UK with a much smaller debt problem and several profitable banks to sell off in a few years time.
If you think that's "like a drunken sailor" you clearly have no understanding of even basic economics. I'll spell it out for you: in a recession the problem is people stop spending, so work dries up and businesses find it hard to get loans or credit (and they all rely on that). The only way you can lessen the effect is to put money into the economy by spending and making sure banks still offer loans.
We are going to have to disagree here, the fastest way back to a healthy economy is to cut tax, regulation and the public sector. The government is now starting to find it difficult to open new lines of credit. We may be close to the time when there are no buyers of government debt. If this happens expect the government to have to go cap in hand to the IMF. It is unlikely that Alistair Darlings spend our way out of the recession plan is going to be an option.
The best way to prevent boom and bust in the future economy as a whole is to prevent future government from increasing taxes and the money supply. We also need to prevent companies from becoming so large that their failure causes issues for the country as a whole.
I don't know what you think the better alternative is, but I'd love to hear it. In the last three recessions the Tory government did fuck all and our manufacturing industry was decimated, 5 million out of work. Well, that isn't entirely true, they did support the rich with tax breaks and encourage everyone to become shareholders, often in formerly public enterprises (and look how well that turned out).
Smaller government, less tax, less regulation. The old fashioned ways before the cult of Keynes really. Unleashing the banking industry only seemed to be a good thing for society as a whole on upside of the boom. The resulting bust is going to be less fun. It would be nice if lessons really were learned, but I doubt they will be. It would be nice if politicians were really accountable for their actions.
Please provide a link to the poll you refer to.
It was a BBC poll of polls, and I don't think it's been published anywhere, only mentioned on the TV. It made Newsnight too I believe.
Thanks for the link. I will watch that when my home BT "business" broadband link decides to give me the bandwidth back.
I go further and view all press reports with scepticism.
You say that, but clearly you don't or you wouldn't repeat the hyperbolic language the press uses. If you can't even manage to strip that away...
Lighten up, hyperbole is fun! Even when reading Daily Mail articles you often find a nugget of truth which can lead on to other more interesting sources. If more than a couple of Labour MPs defect after an election defeat it could be a disaster for Labour. After all the Liberals do not have all the Labour cruft of union support and really left wing members. These possibilities are what make even the Mail article interesting...
The second part is just nonsense though, the kind of tripe put out by the Daily Mail.
Presumably you are referring to this Mail article which is in fact referring to a Daily Telegraph interview with Lord Ashdown the former leader of the Liberal Democrats? This has also been reported by the Times and the Independent, making your comment somewhat disingenuous.
The Labour Party won't split into two, no one (except Daily Mail writers) is even suggesting that.
According to the Telegraph article Lord Ashdown is suggesting just that. Of course no one knows just yet how many Labour MP's have discussed this yet, but a huge election defeat may make this happen.
The UK does not have massive debt, it's actually still a lot lower than most other developed counties (including France, Germany and Japan). It's big by our standards but put in perspective it's not particularly unusual, in fact our previous low levels of government borrowing were unusual.
The Labour government has been spending like a drunken sailor in port. This has been widely reported both in the UK and abroad. While the UK may have less government debt than other nations the next UK government is going to have to cut back on spending on a large scale.
At the moment a poll of polls suggests that the Labour party would remain in power were an election called tomorrow
Please provide a link to the poll you refer to.
I'm no fan of labour, and Jacqui Smith is a particularly nasty, authoritarian powermonger, but I try not to delude myself by believing everything I read in the right wing press.
I go further and view all press reports with scepticism.
mark my words, it'll have bugs which will result in 1000's of "RTFM n00b" or "it's ms's protocol that sucks" responses.
Just as Slashdot is full of trolls and OT comments help forums often have people posting unhelpful comments. Just ignore them. Life is too short for arguing with idiots.
I find the Samba help forums are generally excellent if you take the time to ask a sensible question instead of just posting the first problem that comes up. Often the task of formulating a sensible question solves a problem without actually having to ask on the forums at all. I also generally find my query has already been answered in the forum and all I need to do is search.
The Samba documentation is an excellent resource and generally answers most of the questions you may have. Try starting with John Terpstra's Samba 3 by example which is a practical guide to implementing Samba 3. I don't know if John is working on a Samba 4 update to the book, but there is a WIKI, HowTO and a FAQ available. If you are risk averse you may not want to use Samba 4 in production just yet
First of all, why use crappy openldap when you can use the Netspace directory server that red hat bought and opensourced.
I have foung openLDAP to be reliable, compatible and easy to use. Can you elaborate on why you think it is crap?
There is a reason why they paid 23$ millions for it...
And the reasons are?
Then, AD isn't just a LDAP server with usernames and passwords....
Nor is openLDAP just a store for Windows user names and passwords. I use an openLDAP server for Windows services as well as providing user configuration for other services such as sendmail. The great advantage of using FOSS is that you are free from vendor lock in and can consider non-proprietary alternatives in other areas of your network.
Which is why many people can only use Windows setups. There's nothing like AD in the FOSS world. To start with, FOSS client apps should be lockdown-able from the server. But you can't do that...
I mean, in a office with a linux server and some linux clients, try to lockdown some options on Firefox, the desktop, evolution....surprise, you can't do it. Oh, yeah, there're a lot of workarounds everywhere, but they are different if you use KDE or Gnome or depending on the app you are using. It's a horrible mess.
Nowhere in the article do I see a desire to use FOSS desktop clients. The submitter simply wants to replace AD server with a non MS LDAP based alternative.
Windows clients and servers, on the other hand, are VERY well coupled. The day someone cares to fix this in the FOSS world, a lot of people will start using Linux in corporate networks.
This is otherwise known as vendor lock in. Some of use have tried very hard to break free of it to avoid being held to ransom by a vendor.
Until then, Windows is pretty much the only realistic option. I can't understand why Red Hat, Suse and Ubuntu don't put more efforts on this, it's one of the biggest showstoppers for Linux adoption.
I have been running what you consider an unrealistic option for the best part of a decade. I have yet to be fired. Sirius the consultancy I recommended have a client list of blue chip companines, local govenment and schools. They are all running some form of FOSS backend. You might like to take a fresh look at FOSS, it really works in the real world.
In my previous post I forgot to mention that OGC/Becta are the government agency's responsible for technology in the UK educational environment. It is considerably easier for a UK school to use a Becta accredited supplier than any other supplier. It is an incredible achievement for Sirius to gain that accreditation as no other FOSS consultancy has managed to cut through government red tape thus far.
I think openLDAP should be one of the first products the submitter tries. In my experience it is reliable scalable and free of proprietary cruft. I have used it for years in a commercial network with Samba. OpenLDAP has allowed my company to drastically cut licensing costs, support costs and lengthen hardware lifecycles. As the submitter is UK based I would recommend they contact Sirius. Sirius are the consulting company I use and they are the only UK OGC/Becta accredited FOSS specialist. Sirius have considerable experience in the UK education market and in the submitters position they would be near the top of the list of people to call. Take a look at their client list to see the kind of pedigree they have.
I have worked closely with Mark Taylor the CEO of Sirius for a long time now. Please consider anything I say about them biased, contact them youself and make up your own mind about them.