Not synonyms, but private addressing is a good way to help enforce access around internal networks that don't need outside to inside access. You can certainly set up routing that does the same thing, but you want defense in depth whenever you can.
So every address at IBM is in a routable block? That's not only extravagant, it's blindingly insecure.
Yes, I'm sure that there are firewalls and routing tables that ignore attempts to address the internal 9.x.x.x addresses from the outside, but still, it would be so easy to screw that up. At least with private addressing, you have an entire extra layer of difficulty for people who want to get at your internal networks remotely and more importantly, it defaults to not being routable, even if accidentally exposed somehow.
Oh well. I'm sure IBM has it all under control. (Sells all IBM stock immediately).
Well, you should support your child being who they are. Woz is who he is, and trying to make him into Jobs would only make him unhappy.
However, Lil' Jobs would probably not be as happy if he didn't become Steve Jobs later in life. If his parents pushed him to be Woz-like, would he have been happy? I'm not sure he would have been.
For one thing, it is easy to be super chill when you are a naturally talented engineer who finds happiness in working on projects in your garage. Some people are built with a more driving ambition to affect larger systems (used in the more general sense). They want to be executives so they can bring a grand vision to life, be it a corporation, mass movement, or an empire. Anything less will be frustrating for them.
I agree that you should try and instill values of respect and a healthy sense of perspective vs. worldly ambition in your child, but the world needs leaders too.
Steve Jobs was no saint, but he was an artist in his particular specialty. Woz, God bless him, is a great engineer and a super nice guy, but he'd still be designing hobby projects for fun and maybe have a job as a high level engineer at like HP or IBM or Intel or something today without Jobs. And that's nothing against Woz, but I just think that Woz doesn't care for that kind of success. He's probably happy he can live in some comfort, but he'd rather be an engineer than a corporate leader if he had to choose.
Woz got a little screwed by Jobs perhaps, but are you ever truly screwed if you didn't care to begin with?
Heh, even Jobs couldn't avoid being thrown out of Apple. It's just that he got to come back.
The atmosphere does have 900 degree sulfuric acid at the surface and just above. It also has a surface pressure like being a mile underwater. Carbon dioxide is actually a fluid at that pressure, not a gas.
However at the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is like Earth's, it's not actually livable by itself, but it it isn't a hellish, crushing inferno either. It may well offer advantages over Mars. Having gravity be Earth-similar is important for long term habitation. More of an atmosphere to deal with radiation without having to bore into the surface is pretty useful as well.
More to the point, you don't have to have a fragile balloon or something to keep the settlement up there. Venus is made up of a lot more CO2 by far than Earth is. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than either Nitrogen or Oxygen. Your settlement's air supply would literally be your flotation gas. The only "no fail" tech you would need, would be the same no fail tech you'd need to live on Mars. And with significant CO2, you have a much more ready supply of something that can be turned into Oxygen with scrubbers than you would on a comparatively airless Mars.
His mistake was simple. He decided to be irreplaceable because he didn't think anyone could do as good a job as he could. You can't do that. That never, ever works out well for you.
Now, a startup founder is a really important person for their company, of course. However, even they need to work towards limiting their workload, at least eventually.
There's no point to building a startup if you end up dead or broken at the end of it. If you see it coming, then you need to act to fix it. If you go with the idea that you work or your startup fails, then when you break down, your startup will fail anyway. That or if you do make a successful startup, but break down because of making it successful, congratulations, you've just defined Pyrrhic victory for the startup scene. You'd probably have been better off as a wage slave at the end of it.
Some people are driven to try and succeed, and the journey can be as rewarding all by itself, even with failure at the end. But if you aren't someone who can enjoy, or at least regard the journey as a rewarding learning experience, you should not be founding a startup.
That's my favorite non-fiction history movie.
Yes, you can probably use Minecraft educationally if done with a great deal of thought.
The redstone logic is decent for teaching basics of logic gates and such and so can be expanded to CS and EE topics. I'm not sure what other subjects directly lend themselves to MC, however. Since it has world generation, you might be able to whip up a nice geology simulation of layers of various types of stone, although it is not incredibly realistic right now.
You could certainly build some interesting mods for Minecraft though, but to be truly educational, you'd probably need to use purpose designed ones.
I play with a ton of mods, some of which could be very interesting if they were designed to be more realistic. Of course, I'm not sure that changing the Nuclear Reactor mods out there to be hyper realistic would be useful for K-12, however.
"Mom!! I have U-232 contamination of my Thorium fuel cycle again! How do I get rid of it???"
He totally did, although Himmler was by far more into the occult stuff.
On the other hand, there really wasn't a cyborg Hitler. Well, not until he relocated to his moonbase after his stays in the U.S. and Argentina.
The US Government isn't brave or cowardly. They're fighting a war. The "brave" alternative is sending troops in to get killed. That's not a solution, then you just get more people killed.
There is this feeling that war is too "easy". I don't really see how making war "hard" is really going to help. They had the "War to End All Wars" in 1914-1918. The next war didn't even take that long to happen. And even more people died, despite the hideous number of casualties from the first war.
A government that beats down the opposition quickly and with little loss to their side is doing their job. The problem is with policy. And if you don't like policy, you don't frame it in terms of how effective we are at fighting. That's the wrong discussion.
Yes, but most weapons today wouldn't be made by one person. Not even designed by one person.
You could argue that maybe a sword could have been designed by and smithed by one person, but not a drone or guided missile.
And even a sword is often the result of centuries of development in its details. What metallurgy went into the blade, how long it is, the guard, the grip, etc.
You're simply not going to get one guy who is responsible for it all. The best you'll get is the guy who owns the company who designed it and more importantly, produces it.
Nobody is trying to kill people at weddings. In fact, most of those scenarios would not have happened if there was intelligence it *was* a wedding. The only intel that is usually received is that some high value target was going to be there.
Mistakes are made and perhaps too often. And that *is* a reason to reconsider the drone program. However, that's because it may become counterproductive to defeating the terrorists, not because it is "cowardly".
A terrorist might actually be what used to be called "physically brave" in that they are willing to die or take harm for their cause without flinching. That's important, but they tend to be what is called "moral cowards", because their physical bravery is put to the use of evil.
You can't call a drone pilot a physical coward in the same way. The drone is their weapon. Would you send lightly armored archers into a press of armored cavalry? Hell no. They'd get smashed and do no good. Their weapons are arrows and being light and maneuverable. They're not going to run at and hit knights over the head with their wooden bows or something. They'd get slaughtered.
If that's true, why aren't the inventors (or IP creators) of these weapons not rulers of countries or at least receive a sizable royalties from the spoils of war? Don't these weapons win wars? Why do administrator type politicians and capitalist businessmen divvy up lion's share of a country's output and war profit, leaving only scraps for others?
Wait... Are you saying that people who make weapons don't get paid a lot of money for their weapons? Because they do actually make a lot of money.
Do they get to rule the whole country? Not as such, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. I think the point being made is that it is silly and counterproductive to be afraid to win a fight with a superior weapon just because the loser might call you a "coward". This is war, not a sporting contest. If you're not fighting a war to win it as quickly as possible, you're doing it wrong. Not to mention that you're condemning more people to more pain over a longer period of time just so you can be called "brave".
Weapons are not of more importance than the soldier wielding them, but they do ensure that an otherwise evenly matched fight has a winner which is the person with the better weapon. Since that is the difference between victory and defeat, weapons are critical, albeit not in the absence of a controlling human.
Well there is nothing conspiracy theorist involved in noting that China is working towards parity with the US, and are building fortifications in places like the Spratly Islands.
China definitely could become a threat, especially in their own region, even without matching the US pound for pound.
On the other hand, China having nuclear weapons for years means that a major war with them is still difficult to envision. It could happen, of course, but major wars between nuclear powers are very dangerous and leaders know that.
China's increasing power could allow them to form a bloc, and the bigger danger from that is a resurgence of proxy wars like the Cold War had.