Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | queensnake's comments login

Some recent /opinion/, though not a study, from Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jo...

-----


> I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes

Why can't the army buy the same planes, are they not being manufactured any more?

-----


The key west agreement: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

The army isn't allowed to have fixed wing aircraft with combat capabilities.

-----


Pilots are the hard problem. It's really hard to train them, and to incentivize people to manage them. The Marines can piggy-back on the Navy's aviation personnel infrastructure.

And again, the Marines are capped on scope creep by their placement in the Navy. The Army isn't, so if they got planes that would be much scarier for the Air Force than the Marines.

-----


The Marines use the F/A-18 Hornet and, for close air support in particular, the AV-8B Harrier. Both are slated for replacement by F-35 variants.

They also fly the AH-1 Cobra, which the Army already replaced with the Apache.

-----


Is the Cobra still in service? I had no idea.

-----


Yes, with the Marine Corps, as well as Taiwan, Turkey, and Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_AH-1_SuperCobra#Operators

-----


Such self-fondling pabulum around here. If Aristotle can be wrong, so can Einstein. See: IQ data.

I bet at least the number of people who posted want to say the same thing, but have refrained from posting. I bet frikkin' Paul Graham thinks the same thing (maybe gentler) - he's alluded to 'inexpressible ideas about race' (paraphrase) in one essay.

-----


Hm, I might be misinterpreting your "IQ data" pointer, but just to be clear: variance of IQ in groups is much larger than between them.

-----


There's Ulrich Drepper's "What every programmer should know about memory" - http://lwn.net/Articles/250967/. It's long, it's from 2007, but its fundamentals are right.

-----


http://rockstarresearch.com/increase-longevity-and-intellige...

> It turns out that lots of people get their klotho levels increased as a side-effect of taking prescription forms of “activated” vitamin D (VDRAs) for chronic kidney disease (CKD). But there’s no reason to wait until you’re almost dying and need dialysis to start benefiting from this knowledge. Instead, this implies that taking something like 0.25 mcg/day of Calcitriol or 1 mcg/day of Paricalcitol right now for someone without the beneficial KL-VS variant of the KL gene might actually give a huge longevity and IQ boost.

Also, maybe exercise! http://mangans.blogspot.com/2014/07/klotho-increases-both-lo...

-- just reporting what I've read, I have no idea whether it works / is safe.

-----


Great comment.

You can never go wrong with exercise; that´s for sure.

But I wanted to comment in the activated Vitamin D. People with CKD get this form of vitamin D because their kidneys cannot build it (the last hydroxylation step occurs in the kidney). So, in theory, supplementing with regular Vitamin D3 could boost IQ and longevity.

-----


Is this a proper excuse for me to enjoy the sun more every day?

-----


Sure it is. Not only for this IQ and longevity thing, but for a myriad of health benefits[1]

The sun has made life possible in this planet and our body has evolved to use it for its own benefit.

[1] http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

-----


Wow that sounds really promising.

-----


> The claims are not supposed to tell you how to implement the invention

That part of the original deal around patents has been lost, then - to wit, that after the 17 years elapsed, the world would know how to implement this 'non-obvious invention'.

-----


That's the role of the description, not the claims. Though according to some people here, all that you need to read is the title of the patent to decide whether it's novel and inventive.

-----


No, the difference is in the added word troll, not simply a defender. Trolls are non-practicing, and produce nothing and protect nothing. I'm sure a legitimate 'little guy' with a patent would get all the sympathy he deserves here, unless perhaps, as you mention, it's a software patent.

-----


I think you're missing the point. You can't distinguish between the patent troll and the little guy inventor because their rights are one and the same. A patent troll purchases the right to enforce a patent from an inventor who would otherwise not have the resources to enforce it himself. It is that right, the right granted to the inventor, that is being enforced. Without the patent troll the inventor's rights would get trampled by the large corporations. Hence, the patent troll is defending the small inventor's rights.

The fact that the patent troll is not practicing the invention matters not. There is no requirement that a patent holder practice the patent in order to enforce it. I can assure you the big corporations do not practice all patents they hold and enforce, many just get licensed out - and there's nothing wrong with that. But there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the small inventor doing the same thing, except for him it often requires the help of a patent troll. The patent troll is just doing for the inventor what the big corporations do for themselves, thus leveling the playing field.

-----


If it was a snotty 'ummmm', I personally would object to it in real life, too. And I think others would as well. Also, you don't need 'ums' in writing.

-----


That 'universals' guy seems actually to be Donald Brown, and his book is 'Human Universals'. http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-Brown/dp/00700...

The book is expensive, here's a list:

http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm

-----


> ... the ability to learn, process on the fly, and pull together disparate information. Which is indeed distinct from IQ.

Do you have cites for that?

-----


To be fair, "ability to learn, process on the fly, and pull together disparate information" is indeed "indeed distinct from IQ", but only in the pedantic sense that it'd be more accurate to say such capacities refer to g.

But then...IQ is indeed a reliable, verifiable, and efficient indicator of g, so...indeed.

-----


Well, he did say 'indeed'.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: