Let's say 1/20 intoxicated drivers end up in an accident.
You are overestimating, probably because you assume that "intoxicated"=="blind drunk". In the tests that the OP was referring to, the intoxicated drivers actually had 0 accidents, whereas drivers on cell phones had 10 accidents.Wikipedia:
A 2003 study by the U.S. University of Utah psychology department measured response time, following distance, and driving speed of a control group, subjects at the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of 0.08%, and subjects involved in cell phone conversations. Data from the report are listed to the right.
As the study notes; "... this is the third in a series of studies that we have conducted evaluating the effects of cell phone use on driving using the car following procedure (see also Strayer & Drews, 2004; and Strayer et al., 2003). Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. When results of this study are taken at face value it suggests that it is actually safer to drive drunk than sober. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.
Could you provide a link to some official statement or documentation from Hamas and Hezbollah which says "the sole purpose of our group is to kill American civilians"? One would imagine that, with such a blatant and explicit sole purpose, they must have talked about it and documented it quite thoroughly, so it should be easy for you to find huge numbers of citations to support this claim.
nobody has the right to destroy another country the way Iran wants to destroy Israel.
If no country has the right to seek regime change in another country, what exactly have we been doing in the Middle East?
Why would the U.S. nuke some of its closest allies in the Middle East, including countries and governments that it has pledged to protect, and who in turn supply the U.S. with large amounts of oil? It makes no sense.
The hypothesis that it is more economical for Iran to produce electricity by burning oil has been refuted by the U.S. government's own studies. For an oil producer, it is more profitable to sell oil on the international markets, and use that money to buy or generate electricity through other means. This is even more true as the price of oil continues to rise.
there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel."
Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?
No, he is right - there is a big difference between "the European Union should not exist" and "We are going to destroy the European Union". The former merely states an opinion, the latter declares intent of action.
Why couldn't OpenOffice have a tablet specific GUI? There are already apps that change layout depending on the window size. It isn't a great stretch of the imagination to contemplate something similar for OO.
The bulk of the code in a Linux distribution is not the GUI layer - it is everything else, all of the libraries and application logic. It would be entirely feasible to build a standard GNOME/KDE/XFCE/whatever desktop, where the applications dynamically detect the output device (size/orientation/touch) and adjust the GUI accordingly. In fact, that approach seems a lot more sensible than the current one of writing apps from scratch using Java+Android API.
The trial wasn't overturned for sending messages. It was overturned because the juror went against the judge's explicits instructions and therefore failed to follow the law. There is an important difference there. The supreme court finding says: "First, the procedural posture of this case is not that Appellant was prejudiced by the fact that the juror tweeted; rather, Appellant avers the prejudice results from the fact that the juror admitted to the misconduct, which proves that he failed to follow the court’s instructions, and it is the failure to follow the law that prejudiced Appellant."
The circuit court judge gave the jury clear instructions "When you’re back in the jury room, it’s fine with me to use your cell phone if you need to call home or call business. Just remember, never discuss this case over your cell phone. And don’t Twitter anybody about this case. That did happen down in Washington County and almost had a, a $15 million law verdict overthrown. So don’t Twitter. Don’t use your cell phone to talk to anybody about this case other than perhaps the length of the case or something like that.". This guy used Twitter, despite being explicitly instructed to not use Twitter.
Even if there hadn't have been explicit instructions not to use Twitter, the supreme court judges may have still come out with the same finding. One of the judges said, ""Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts or other information about a case in such a public fashion. One potential problem is that there is no way to know that outbound messages are "non-detail-bearing" and "one-way", unless you monitor the phone of every juror for the duration of the trial. How did this Twitter juror know that nobody was going to reply to his tweets? There is no way to guarantee that the communication is "only one-way". There have been several cases now where jurors are seen texting during the trial, and they deny they are talking about the trial, but when the phones are examined it turns out they were in fact talking about the trial. That is illegal, and will cause the trial to collapse if discovered. And a new trial costs the tax payer money.
The other big problem, is that if you allow outbound messages, an industry will grow around it. Jurors will become syndicated, they will be posting updates on their blogs and receive income from advertising etc. If an activity is allowed, then it will be difficult to stop it being commercialized if there is a demand for it. And, if you were being judged, would you really want to know that there was a constant flow of one-way information being broadcast from the jury to the rest of the world? Who is going to monitor and judge whether or not the details they reveal go too far? Surely it is far simpler, and cheaper, just to instruct them not to talk about their jury duty - like every other juror has had to do in legal history. I don't see why owning a mobile phone should make modern citizens exempt from these rules. Is it really so hard for people to control their actions on social networks?
The problem is that it costs money to run a trial. When convictions are overturned because of jury behavior, then you have to order a new (possibly expensive) trial, or give up and let a convicted criminal go free because of what to many appears to be a technicality. Either is undesirable. It does seem like this kind of thing is becoming more likely to happen, e.g. this case from only a few weeks ago. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than to come down hard on jurors who do this.
It *increase* justice, it doesn't make it harder to obtain justice. The jury can refuse to convict someone of an unjust law.
It is not logical to conclude that because a jury is empowered to override laws, then the level of justice must be increased. The jury could refuse to convict someone who is guilty of a just law, or convict an innocent person because they have some (racial, ethnic, gender) bias against that person.
However, I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that in the majority of cases a jury empowered to override the law would use it to increase justice, if you can provide evidence that this is the case. Is there any research on jury nullification that classifies the jury result into "more/less justice", and if so, what is the ratio of juries that do the right thing, versus juries that do the wrong thing?
When Megakey is installed the software asks permission to modify where 10 to 15% of the user’s online advertising experience is sourced from.
“It works like an ad blocker but instead of blocking ads we show ads coming from Megaclick, our ad network,” says Kim. “This way we will generate enough ad revenue to provide free premium services and licensed content so that our users can have it for free.”
So they derive income for premium services by replacing adverts on the web? Google, Facebook etc. are going to love that. Top of the stack wins.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates
It wasn't that patenting wasn't allowed, it was just that nobody really understood how generic and obvious patents would be treated in the future. If I could time travel to 1995, I could tell myself to patent connecting a GPS receiver to a laptop and having it query a database running on a secondary server. That would now be called mobile geolocation services, and the patent would be worth billions of dollars. Similarly, at some point in the 90s, I had the idea of transferring executable objects as part of a client/server display. That would now be called a web applet, and again the patent would be worth billions.. If I had only known that adding the suffixes "on the web" or "on a mobile device" was a valid way to create new patents, then I would have patented "telephony... on [the web/mobile device]", "video... on [the web/mobile device]", "instant messaging... on [the web/mobile device]". But, back then, who knew that the system would turn out to be so crazy?!
This isn't quite as forehead slapping as Samsung's crack legal team not being able to tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad, but it's pretty close.
I wonder if the judge could tell the difference between Samsung's digital photo frame and an iPad from 10 feet away? (And yes, I know one of Samsung's lawyers did correctly identify the devices).
it's not about any one of the claimed similarities. It's about all of them at once. If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.
Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Changing one lone design feature does not magically make a product non-infringing. Design patent:"An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
Better in some ways, not so good in others. I can think of a few areas FF wins:
* Firebug > Chrome debugger
* Firefox sync > Chrome sync (and it doesn't use your Google account password by default and then send your "encrypted" passwords to Google!)
* Firefox fullscreen mode is better (I like to max the vertical space, particularly on small wide screens. With FF, F11, Ctrl-L still works, which is essential for my browsing habits)
I use both, but to be honest most of the time I can't tell the difference: they both do a pretty good job of actually rendering web sites. Sure, Chrome may have lower memory requirements, but the real reason Chrome is gaining more market share is probably because Google is actually marketing and advertising it.
Echo is similar, but written in Java. It uses widgets and everything runs on the server side. The client side is just a Javascript program that draws the web app components. Very fast to develop in. I'm hoping that we will see some nice work coming out of Broadway - the HTML5 backend for GTK. Native apps, written in whatever language you want, straight to the web. There's a lot of advantage to keeping all the logic server-side in one persistent (I'm tempted to say "proper") application, and relegating HTML+Javascript to function only as a client-side display layer.
The U.S. bombed an embassy and killed three people. There is little doubt that the bombing was deliberate. Should the people who carried out the bombing be prosecuted? Do the Chinese have the right to respond as much as they see fit, even if the response is disproportional?
'Through 2008, the United States repeatedly refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states.[181] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported that, according to military officials, the Bush administration had plans for the use of nuclear weapons against "underground Iranian nuclear facilities".[182] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Bush "directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."'Wikipedia.
Actually, the present Iranian government never signed the NPT. Their predecessors, the Shah dictatorship, signed, but they got overthrown by the revolution. Treaties signed by the Shah are not legally binding on a government that disposed of him (after the U.S. revolted against British rule, did the treaties of the British government still apply to the U.S.? Obviously not.)
Okay. So by your logic, its alright if I develop a nuclear bomb in my garage.
Fine, if you are a nation state.
Iran is the one developing nuclear weapons in the neighborhood garage, against international laws,
1) There is no international law against developing nuclear weapons. 2) Americans seem to be generally against international laws and international courts. 3) Israel has nukes. You can't argue for a nuclear-free Middle East if Israel has nukes. And if Israel has nukes, then Israel's neighbors will want nukes.
You would treat him as the real potential threat to you his own actions have declared him to be.
Iran poses no threat to the U.S. Iran is not going to invade the U.S. Iran is not going to nuke the U.S. This is just another bogus alarmist "Iraq has the WMDs and will kill us all!" claim. Iran also poses no threat to Israel. As Jacques Chirac said, "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
Look, the choice is simple:
1) Go to war. Invade Iran. The military predict it will not be a pushover like Iraq. There will be fierce resistance. Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will be killed. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. The price of oil will rocket (Iran block the Strait) and there might be economic collapse. But in the end, after many lives lost and economic chaos, you will probably get regime change and control of the oil.
2) No war. Iran builds a nuke and is in the same position as North Korea, USSR, Israel, India, Pakistan, or any other nuclear nation. They have an expensive weapon that deters attack, but they can't never use it offensively because they will be destroyed by MAD doctrine. Life goes on.
(Seriously, the media pushed this whole "the world will end when North Korea gets nukes" story years ago, and they pushed "the world will end when Pakistan gets nukes" story years ago. They both got nukes and the world didn't end. Why do people still fall for it?!)
Yes, forbidden; airspace, air sovereignty: "By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. "
Just because something happens, does not mean that it is legal. See for example: underage drinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say 1/20 intoxicated drivers end up in an accident.
You are overestimating, probably because you assume that "intoxicated"=="blind drunk". In the tests that the OP was referring to, the intoxicated drivers actually had 0 accidents, whereas drivers on cell phones had 10 accidents.Wikipedia:
A 2003 study by the U.S. University of Utah psychology department measured response time, following distance, and driving speed of a control group, subjects at the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of 0.08%, and subjects involved in cell phone conversations. Data from the report are listed to the right. As the study notes; "... this is the third in a series of studies that we have conducted evaluating the effects of cell phone use on driving using the car following procedure (see also Strayer & Drews, 2004; and Strayer et al., 2003). Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. When results of this study are taken at face value it suggests that it is actually safer to drive drunk than sober. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.
nobody has the right to destroy another country the way Iran wants to destroy Israel.
If no country has the right to seek regime change in another country, what exactly have we been doing in the Middle East?
Why would the U.S. nuke some of its closest allies in the Middle East, including countries and governments that it has pledged to protect, and who in turn supply the U.S. with large amounts of oil? It makes no sense.
The hypothesis that it is more economical for Iran to produce electricity by burning oil has been refuted by the U.S. government's own studies. For an oil producer, it is more profitable to sell oil on the international markets, and use that money to buy or generate electricity through other means. This is even more true as the price of oil continues to rise.
there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel."
Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?
No, he is right - there is a big difference between "the European Union should not exist" and "We are going to destroy the European Union". The former merely states an opinion, the latter declares intent of action.
OpenOffice would be hell on a tablet
Why couldn't OpenOffice have a tablet specific GUI? There are already apps that change layout depending on the window size. It isn't a great stretch of the imagination to contemplate something similar for OO.
The bulk of the code in a Linux distribution is not the GUI layer - it is everything else, all of the libraries and application logic. It would be entirely feasible to build a standard GNOME/KDE/XFCE/whatever desktop, where the applications dynamically detect the output device (size/orientation/touch) and adjust the GUI accordingly. In fact, that approach seems a lot more sensible than the current one of writing apps from scratch using Java+Android API.
Yes, it's a shame that it's just not possible to create a GUI for a package manager. Nobody ever did that, right?
But non-detail-bearing outbound messages?
The trial wasn't overturned for sending messages. It was overturned because the juror went against the judge's explicits instructions and therefore failed to follow the law. There is an important difference there. The supreme court finding says: "First, the procedural posture of this case is not that Appellant was prejudiced by the fact that the juror tweeted; rather, Appellant avers the prejudice results from the fact that the juror admitted to the misconduct, which proves that he failed to follow the court’s instructions, and it is the failure to follow the law that prejudiced Appellant."
The circuit court judge gave the jury clear instructions "When you’re back in the jury room, it’s fine with me to use your cell phone if you need to call home or call business. Just remember, never discuss this case over your cell phone. And don’t Twitter anybody about this case. That did happen down in Washington County and almost had a, a $15 million law verdict overthrown. So don’t Twitter. Don’t use your cell phone to talk to anybody about this case other than perhaps the length of the case or something like that.". This guy used Twitter, despite being explicitly instructed to not use Twitter.
Even if there hadn't have been explicit instructions not to use Twitter, the supreme court judges may have still come out with the same finding. One of the judges said, ""Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts or other information about a case in such a public fashion. One potential problem is that there is no way to know that outbound messages are "non-detail-bearing" and "one-way", unless you monitor the phone of every juror for the duration of the trial. How did this Twitter juror know that nobody was going to reply to his tweets? There is no way to guarantee that the communication is "only one-way". There have been several cases now where jurors are seen texting during the trial, and they deny they are talking about the trial, but when the phones are examined it turns out they were in fact talking about the trial. That is illegal, and will cause the trial to collapse if discovered. And a new trial costs the tax payer money.
The other big problem, is that if you allow outbound messages, an industry will grow around it. Jurors will become syndicated, they will be posting updates on their blogs and receive income from advertising etc. If an activity is allowed, then it will be difficult to stop it being commercialized if there is a demand for it. And, if you were being judged, would you really want to know that there was a constant flow of one-way information being broadcast from the jury to the rest of the world? Who is going to monitor and judge whether or not the details they reveal go too far? Surely it is far simpler, and cheaper, just to instruct them not to talk about their jury duty - like every other juror has had to do in legal history. I don't see why owning a mobile phone should make modern citizens exempt from these rules. Is it really so hard for people to control their actions on social networks?
The problem is that it costs money to run a trial. When convictions are overturned because of jury behavior, then you have to order a new (possibly expensive) trial, or give up and let a convicted criminal go free because of what to many appears to be a technicality. Either is undesirable. It does seem like this kind of thing is becoming more likely to happen, e.g. this case from only a few weeks ago. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than to come down hard on jurors who do this.
It *increase* justice, it doesn't make it harder to obtain justice. The jury can refuse to convict someone of an unjust law.
It is not logical to conclude that because a jury is empowered to override laws, then the level of justice must be increased. The jury could refuse to convict someone who is guilty of a just law, or convict an innocent person because they have some (racial, ethnic, gender) bias against that person.
However, I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that in the majority of cases a jury empowered to override the law would use it to increase justice, if you can provide evidence that this is the case. Is there any research on jury nullification that classifies the jury result into "more/less justice", and if so, what is the ratio of juries that do the right thing, versus juries that do the wrong thing?
When Megakey is installed the software asks permission to modify where 10 to 15% of the user’s online advertising experience is sourced from. “It works like an ad blocker but instead of blocking ads we show ads coming from Megaclick, our ad network,” says Kim. “This way we will generate enough ad revenue to provide free premium services and licensed content so that our users can have it for free.”
So they derive income for premium services by replacing adverts on the web? Google, Facebook etc. are going to love that. Top of the stack wins.
Implementing something your own way is evil and proprietary.
Native client is open source. So is chromium.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates
It wasn't that patenting wasn't allowed, it was just that nobody really understood how generic and obvious patents would be treated in the future. If I could time travel to 1995, I could tell myself to patent connecting a GPS receiver to a laptop and having it query a database running on a secondary server. That would now be called mobile geolocation services, and the patent would be worth billions of dollars. Similarly, at some point in the 90s, I had the idea of transferring executable objects as part of a client/server display. That would now be called a web applet, and again the patent would be worth billions.. If I had only known that adding the suffixes "on the web" or "on a mobile device" was a valid way to create new patents, then I would have patented "telephony... on [the web/mobile device]", "video... on [the web/mobile device]", "instant messaging... on [the web/mobile device]". But, back then, who knew that the system would turn out to be so crazy?!
This isn't quite as forehead slapping as Samsung's crack legal team not being able to tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad, but it's pretty close.
I wonder if the judge could tell the difference between Samsung's digital photo frame and an iPad from 10 feet away? (And yes, I know one of Samsung's lawyers did correctly identify the devices).
it's not about any one of the claimed similarities. It's about all of them at once. If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.
Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Changing one lone design feature does not magically make a product non-infringing. Design patent: "An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
Better in some ways, not so good in others. I can think of a few areas FF wins:
* Firebug > Chrome debugger
* Firefox sync > Chrome sync (and it doesn't use your Google account password by default and then send your "encrypted" passwords to Google!)
* Firefox fullscreen mode is better (I like to max the vertical space, particularly on small wide screens. With FF, F11, Ctrl-L still works, which is essential for my browsing habits)
I use both, but to be honest most of the time I can't tell the difference: they both do a pretty good job of actually rendering web sites. Sure, Chrome may have lower memory requirements, but the real reason Chrome is gaining more market share is probably because Google is actually marketing and advertising it.
Echo is similar, but written in Java. It uses widgets and everything runs on the server side. The client side is just a Javascript program that draws the web app components. Very fast to develop in. I'm hoping that we will see some nice work coming out of Broadway - the HTML5 backend for GTK. Native apps, written in whatever language you want, straight to the web. There's a lot of advantage to keeping all the logic server-side in one persistent (I'm tempted to say "proper") application, and relegating HTML+Javascript to function only as a client-side display layer.
Funnily enough, Christians have always been the majority of casualties in terror attacks by Christian fundamentalists too. The Catholic Church once ordered armies to wipe out the Cathars - another branch of Christianity - resulting in the massacre of over one million men, women and children. The Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, hundreds of thousands dead, all carried out by feuding groups of Christians. Religion...
The U.S. bombed an embassy and killed three people. There is little doubt that the bombing was deliberate. Should the people who carried out the bombing be prosecuted? Do the Chinese have the right to respond as much as they see fit, even if the response is disproportional?
Is Israel part of the United States?
The US has not made a threat of war against Iran.
'Through 2008, the United States repeatedly refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states.[181] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported that, according to military officials, the Bush administration had plans for the use of nuclear weapons against "underground Iranian nuclear facilities".[182] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Bush "directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."' Wikipedia.
Actually, the present Iranian government never signed the NPT. Their predecessors, the Shah dictatorship, signed, but they got overthrown by the revolution. Treaties signed by the Shah are not legally binding on a government that disposed of him (after the U.S. revolted against British rule, did the treaties of the British government still apply to the U.S.? Obviously not.)
Okay. So by your logic, its alright if I develop a nuclear bomb in my garage.
Fine, if you are a nation state.
Iran is the one developing nuclear weapons in the neighborhood garage, against international laws,
1) There is no international law against developing nuclear weapons. 2) Americans seem to be generally against international laws and international courts. 3) Israel has nukes. You can't argue for a nuclear-free Middle East if Israel has nukes. And if Israel has nukes, then Israel's neighbors will want nukes.
You would treat him as the real potential threat to you his own actions have declared him to be.
Iran poses no threat to the U.S. Iran is not going to invade the U.S. Iran is not going to nuke the U.S. This is just another bogus alarmist "Iraq has the WMDs and will kill us all!" claim. Iran also poses no threat to Israel. As Jacques Chirac said, "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
Look, the choice is simple:
1) Go to war. Invade Iran. The military predict it will not be a pushover like Iraq. There will be fierce resistance. Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will be killed. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. The price of oil will rocket (Iran block the Strait) and there might be economic collapse. But in the end, after many lives lost and economic chaos, you will probably get regime change and control of the oil.
2) No war. Iran builds a nuke and is in the same position as North Korea, USSR, Israel, India, Pakistan, or any other nuclear nation. They have an expensive weapon that deters attack, but they can't never use it offensively because they will be destroyed by MAD doctrine. Life goes on.
(Seriously, the media pushed this whole "the world will end when North Korea gets nukes" story years ago, and they pushed "the world will end when Pakistan gets nukes" story years ago. They both got nukes and the world didn't end. Why do people still fall for it?!)
Yes, forbidden; airspace, air sovereignty: "By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. "
Just because something happens, does not mean that it is legal. See for example: underage drinking.
They sure shot a lot of SAMs at something they "didn't intend to down"... why would they do that?
(Incidentally, this book is a pretty interesting read if you're into this stuff...)