Re: The bleedin' obvious
Technically correct, the best kind of correct
26124 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
>"anything under 120mm is a bit gay"
Nothing to do with sexuality, we are merely reclaiming the word 'gay' to describe the exuberant joie de vivre that has always been associated with the recreational use of heavy artillery.
>Achilles (sacker of cities, lover of Patroclus), Alexander the Great (defeated only once, but the sight of Hephaestion's thighs) and T E Lawrence
So another bunch of white western imperialist aristocratic elites then ?
This is where we are going wrong.
Instead of trying to ban bigger guns we need to ban small ones. If the right to bear arms is to protect against a tyrannical government then we need decent weapons 105mm recoilless minimum, although anything under 120mm is a bit gay.
We should also relax the ridiculous restrictions on driving an M1 Abrams as your regular commuter. It gets better gas mileage than your RAM pickup, and we have 1000s in storage so improving the shortages of new cars
In the case of sharpshooter, the microphone network to locate gunshots, it seems that the system was mostly used afterwards to justify an armed response.
The human expert could go in later and reclassify as a gunshot something the system had not, if it was in a convenient place/time for the police story
Supporting piracy is fantastic, it totally destroys any native tech industry.
There is no market for a home grown Office suite if you can use MS Office for free and no sense in writing any software I'd your customers assume they can steal it.
No point in studying CS in Russia, may as well get a job in fast food.
Can't see that having any long term economic or strategic effects
Yes, my point is that this isn't like going from a Cray XMP to a Cray YMP in the old days.
If your job runs effectively on a 60,000 node hybrid Xeon+GPU machine, it's like to run pretty well on an 100,000 node version. Yes it's the interconnect technology and cost that drive these machines but there isn't necessarily an obvious hard limit at today's scale
We don't have to use them, we just have to build them.
We need to have the biggestly computer or we lose
Actually using them would require having lots of highly educated scientists, do you know how expensive that would be? And it would be a terrible waste of all that expensive education if they were just modeling stuff when they could be leveraging dynamic synergies on Wall St
>I don't think UNITE needs to get its knickers in a twist about losing skilled technology workers.
It isn't. It's worried that all the admin and ancillary staff will be offloaded and outsourced to some sub-minimum wage/immigrant staffing outfit.
The managers need to say they are cutting staff to boost the stock price, but they don't want to lose any chip designers. Firstly because they need them, but also if they start making any highly skilled tech workers redundant then all the others run for the exits.