bases

The US is committed to fleet carriers and expensive aircraft, while the Chinese focus on island bases and balistic missiles.

Building bases is one thing- claiming territory and the right to block others from entering it is another entirely.

In theory, China could build islands across the pacific and setup bases and missiles along the US west coast.

China is free to try to negotiate the establishment of navy bases anywhere in the world they see fit.

The biggest hurdle to overcome when moving existing code bases to Python 3 (affectionally known as py3k) is third-party libraries.

For dealing with heterogeneous bases, as with measuring in imperial units, take a look at the fraction notation in Fibonacci’s book.

You're left with F-35Bs and F-35Cs that can operate perfectly well from land bases.

You then have to question which country has the access to most of the world's ports and bases outside of their own.

I've found the most successful way of dealing with these code bases is definitely not this.

But the example was of combining two code bases, one of which tried to maintain const correctness and one which had utter disregard for it.

Or how about maybe close US military bases on German soil.

To be fair, some of those island bases in Asia are used for the CIA torture program, so its purported purpose is probably not aggression towards China.

I don't know where we should draw the line, but I do know that "we should never have military bases if one person has to be relocated" is not the line.

The "focus" mentioned in the article is incredibly diffuse: > he said they stayed focused on “delivering a stealth fighter that could fly faster than the speed of sound, carry its weapons internally, conduct short takeoffs and vertical landings, and be deployed from amphibious ships and austere bases.” The justification was, if you can believe it, that having a single platform would reduce costs.