Just fine - in the past 15 years I've dealt with office upgrades, including migrating access databases from 97 to 2000 where there was the Unicode update.
I can count the minor issues of significance I've had to deal with one one hand. If the problems were as bad as you'd like to portray, companies would have ditched office long ago.
More to the point, StarOffice, OpenOffice, OOo, Libreoffice, Koffice, etc. have all had 1+ decades to kill Microsoft Office and their success rate has been pretty much zero percent.
Could they? Sure. But xp is a dead platform and Microsoft have a clearly fined product support life cycle. Which Xperia is well past the end of for mainstream users. Supporting it costs money.
Bullshit. The airframe may be specced for it but the aircraft runs out of energy. The f22 is better in this regard but with a full weapons load and at combat altitude it will still bleed energy when in a tight turn.
Yup. Bombers and cruise missiles are what to defend against. Fighters are just a byproduct of that. If we can do that better with something else they will cease to exist.
Be careful what you wish for. The MAD doctrine from the cold war dictates that if you are able to strike first and suffer no counter-attack, then you should strike.
By extension, if we have a weapons platform that we can use with little consequence, we should use it to strike first against any who oppose us (us being the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE).
Unmanned drones means the government do not need people to man them. Which means they have free reign to attack who and what they like. Be afraid.
Whilst there is a human cost, the politicians need humans willing to risk their lives to carry out their war. With drones, that requirement goes out the window.
The human loss requirement is not about preventing the people in the actual war doing bad things. It's about the people they left behind holding the government accountable for their actions and voting them out if they do dumb shit and engage in counter-productive wars for the sake of it.
I'd actually suggest that we're already a lot further along that and are already engaged in the end game after robot vs robot. We're currently in a currency war, which is achieving the same end result of robot vs robot (financial loss).
Look up G vs turn radius. Missiles travel a lot faster than fighters, so they NEED to pull WAY higher G to turn with a fighter, and can still be fooled as they run lead pursuit to minimise distance. They can be tricked into flying into the ground, missing, etc without the pilot needing to pull anywhere near the same G as the missile. Even a missile that can pull 28-30G is not a point and shoot death laser that can't be evaded with far less G required by the pilot - so long as he knows he's been fired on.
A dogfight is what happens when two opposing forces merge, and the initial round of beyond visual range missiles don't kill everyone, which is relatively common - as both guys are in a game of chicken where they want to wait as long as posisble to launch so the missile has the maximum amount of energy for turning when it gets close so the fighter can't evade it, but they don't want the other guy to launch first. So typically they may launch pretty early and the missile has no energy left to turn by the time it gets to the other guy.
As to why fighters are up there in the first place? To stop the other guys bombing you, and to protect your bombers and other assets, typically.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I was a fan of win2k, vista and 7
Funny. Considering ie8 shipped with windows 7.
Seems to scroll faster over PCoIP
There are also many more regressions.
In which case Microsoft expire their certificate and the code stops running.
Except he does. Or a least who's certificate they are signed by, which he can then revoke.
What cut do valve take for steam distribution?
Just fine - in the past 15 years I've dealt with office upgrades, including migrating access databases from 97 to 2000 where there was the Unicode update.
I can count the minor issues of significance I've had to deal with one one hand. If the problems were as bad as you'd like to portray, companies would have ditched office long ago.
SO because some people kill people, it's fine to kill people now?
More to the point, StarOffice, OpenOffice, OOo, Libreoffice, Koffice, etc. have all had 1+ decades to kill Microsoft Office and their success rate has been pretty much zero percent.
Could they? Sure. But xp is a dead platform and Microsoft have a clearly fined product support life cycle. Which Xperia is well past the end of for mainstream users. Supporting it costs money.
Bullshit. The airframe may be specced for it but the aircraft runs out of energy. The f22 is better in this regard but with a full weapons load and at combat altitude it will still bleed energy when in a tight turn.
Mere seconds of sustaining 9+ g is enough as the aircraft can't sustain it either due to lack of airspeed.
Yup. Bombers and cruise missiles are what to defend against. Fighters are just a byproduct of that. If we can do that better with something else they will cease to exist.
Seems to work for israel.
You mean the previous generation of weapons WE SOLD THEM, so we could justify making BETTER WEAPONS?
Because of course IFF transponder codes could never be compromised via a leak :)
Be careful what you wish for. The MAD doctrine from the cold war dictates that if you are able to strike first and suffer no counter-attack, then you should strike.
By extension, if we have a weapons platform that we can use with little consequence, we should use it to strike first against any who oppose us (us being the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE).
Unmanned drones means the government do not need people to man them. Which means they have free reign to attack who and what they like. Be afraid.
Whilst there is a human cost, the politicians need humans willing to risk their lives to carry out their war. With drones, that requirement goes out the window.
The human loss requirement is not about preventing the people in the actual war doing bad things. It's about the people they left behind holding the government accountable for their actions and voting them out if they do dumb shit and engage in counter-productive wars for the sake of it.
I'd actually suggest that we're already a lot further along that and are already engaged in the end game after robot vs robot. We're currently in a currency war, which is achieving the same end result of robot vs robot (financial loss).
Lol. You think the U2 and SR-71 only flew within the boundaries of treaty legal space? :D
There already exist unmanned aircraft which are designed to bring down fighters. They're called SAMS.
They're also very fuel constrained and burn all of it within seconds. Make the missile waste energy and it runs out of ability to maneuver.
Look up G vs turn radius. Missiles travel a lot faster than fighters, so they NEED to pull WAY higher G to turn with a fighter, and can still be fooled as they run lead pursuit to minimise distance. They can be tricked into flying into the ground, missing, etc without the pilot needing to pull anywhere near the same G as the missile. Even a missile that can pull 28-30G is not a point and shoot death laser that can't be evaded with far less G required by the pilot - so long as he knows he's been fired on.
You don't intentionally go up there to dogfight.
A dogfight is what happens when two opposing forces merge, and the initial round of beyond visual range missiles don't kill everyone, which is relatively common - as both guys are in a game of chicken where they want to wait as long as posisble to launch so the missile has the maximum amount of energy for turning when it gets close so the fighter can't evade it, but they don't want the other guy to launch first. So typically they may launch pretty early and the missile has no energy left to turn by the time it gets to the other guy.
As to why fighters are up there in the first place? To stop the other guys bombing you, and to protect your bombers and other assets, typically.