As I understand it from reading a few other articles, there still exists the challenge of getting past the barrier of infinite energy required to even match the speed of light. Perhaps there will be found a way to tunnel past it, but I expect that while all the math may work neatly, actually breaking through is going to be nearly impossible. Then there's the problem of slowing down which means tunneling back through the other way.
Much as I've been warned off by the articles that claim the paper to be fairly impenetrable to non-mathematicians, I'm tempted to pay the $30 to get the article anyway.
The R-37 is an interesting missile, but the range is, in some ways, probably not terribly useful to a nation like Syria with a small area over which to fight. The extreme range version (R-37M) is apparently only being tested this year in Russia, and I don't think Russia is sending many advanced weapons down to Syria right now with the arms embargo in place. Most active radar homing missiles don't use it for the entire flight profile, relying on the launch platform's radar for all but the terminal portion of the flight.
That puts a Syrian fighter in a difficult situation of maintaining a lock on the AWACS plane (if it can get it) for a minute or more (I calculate a run at the max range to take about three minutes), and that's a long time in a hostile environment if enemies are close: a couple of fighters with Sparrow or AMRAAM 20-30 miles away could probably take down the launcher before terminal phase was entered, depending on the launcher's range from the AWACS.
It would make for a tremendous morale booster for anyone that did shoot one down, but it might also cause some redoubling of the efforts to destroy the air force involved.
I'm not voting either side because of the ad. What I am going to do is write a letter and mail it to the address on the site (since I expect the email inboxes will be full and they're not terribly computer-savvy anyway) and explain to them just how out-of-touch this makes them--and every other Republican to many people--look to a younger generation. Maybe I'll even get a response. It would be amusing.
I haven't seen much on the data link except about the exercises in Alaska. As I understand it, the Red Force Raptors weren't allowed to rearm or regenerate without landing through at least one part, so they went into a standoff mode and played controller for the allied forces, using their more advanced (and presumably harder to track) radars to help guide in planes without their own radars on. I don't know for certain that they were sharing over the data link, but it seems likely as it would be easier on all involved, suggesting a more robust system than previously mounted on fighters.
Having AWACS is like having a carrier: it's a big, expensive target that's hard to defend and a waste of resources if you don't know how and where to use them. China knows that about its carriers and they're not going to be terribly useful for at least another decade, more likely two. Until then, they'll be sheltered and should war break out, will be used as mobile airbases instead of force projection. There's a subtle difference there, but it's present.
AWACS is the same. The planes cost a lot of money, can be large, and are generally highly vulnerable. But if you know how and where to use them, they mean the entire battle. When you're able to coordinate a hundred aircraft, skirt your ground-skimmers around newly-found SAMs, maneuver your higher aircraft around enemy planes (or at least their missile ranges), and then help them fight their way back out all because you have a superior battlefield view and asset knowledge while usually flying outside the range of any known air-to-air missile. But you have to put it all together, and it takes a lot of training and experience.
The Israelis seemed to manage just fine. I keep hearing about this Suter thing which is supposed to be the be-all-end-all of EW suites.
They were heading in to a specific target located in a small patch of land. That's different from trying to knock out the Syrian military or enforcing a no-fly zone. This is the first I've heard of Suter, and after looking it up (what meager resources there are on it) I agree it would certainly be useful. I still think there would be enormous risk, especially since not all NATO aircraft would have it. As I read it, only a few US aircraft have it, though Israel seems to have something similar (or maybe stolen). The Wild Weasels might have fun with it, but I'm not sure the average Eagle is going to be take solace in it.
You clearly didn't read the post to which I was responding and which I directly quoted which suggested that a large group of inexpensive ("$10 million") MiGs with pilots willing to do anything to get a kill (presumably including suicide ramming tactics) to take down a smaller group of F-15s and -22s. Since you're working in the realm of reality and not the fantasy of that poster, we can have a more intelligent discussion.
I'm aware that no one actually flies that kind of grouping. But planes like the F-15 and F-16 will sometimes be grouped on missions with F-22s if only for simple numbers (many more non-stealth than Raptors in the inventory). The Eagle and Falcon have the advantage of raw firepower because their stealth signatures aren't as big an issue, and if it's a strike mission, they're able to carry many more bombs than an F-22 while still maintaining a credible air-to-air capability. Raptors would likely be flying complementary air superiority (or cover for them if on a strike mission), perhaps even using the others as long-range radar bait to draw enemy fighters in a chosen direction before moving in to pick them off. In either case, there will be enough distance between the aircraft types to allow the Raptors to be within support distance without nullifying their stealth advantage.
Combined with AWACS to give battle control, any credible aerial threat is going to have a very, very difficult time knocking down even one plane, let alone making a significant dent in the force. The only credible threat to have significant AWACS experience is Russia; China is likely still figuring out how to effectively use it (much like they will be with their carriers for the next two decades) and Iran doesn't have much experience with it.
Once the aerial threat is neutralized in an offensive mission, taking out the ground targets becomes a lot easier (especially with the SDB in inventory now), though by no means a slam dunk. It's one of the reasons no one is getting involved in a Syrian no-fly zone: the place is so dense with antiaircraft defenses that there aren't really enough cruise missiles to do the job and inevitably manned planes have to fly in and take out the targets, putting them at risk, especially if they end up in the cross-hairs of an S-300 system.
I know a fair amount about this. I've had an interest in military aircraft since I was about seven and have tracked them ever since.
Internally, the F-22 can carry six AMRAAMs plus two Sidewinders. They also have a gun with a few hundred rounds and in exercises have been able to sneak up on their targets and get into dogfight range without being detected until the first kill. But the OP mentioned "ONE F-22 and a bunch of F-15s" and the F-15s can each carry eight AMRAAMs (though a load-out of four AMRAAMs and four Sidewinders is more likely). So let's say that it's one F-22 and a dozen F-15s. That's a combined 104 missiles capable of solid engagement ranges from dogfight out to over 150km. Against MiG-23s, the odds are so slim that one will even get a chance to damage one of the F-22/F-15 air fleet that they may as well not even go up. This isn't factoring in the ability of the F-22/F-15 group to speed out to the MiGs, down them, speed back, and rearm, and get back in the air before the remaining MiGs (if any) can even get close enough to make the airfield nervous.
The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat. The F-22 is even better. No cheap MiG is likely to do any better in the future than any that have tried in the past.
I don't think so. I don't know for sure that the $190M F-22 is six times better than a $30M F-15, but it's a lot more than 19 times better than the MiGs it's likely to face. Oh, maybe not the MiG-29, where it's perhaps only eight or ten times better, but the F-22 has the ability to knock you down from 60 miles out (around 100 miles when the AMRAAM-D comes along). Even one F-22 and a few F-15s would make short work of 20+ MiGs at $10M each since at that price, you're using comparatively ancient MiG-23s and not even MiG-29s, which cost three times as much.
Besides, the factor you missed is AWACS. That's a force multiplier of unbelievable proportion. Iraq learned that the hard way twice. When you have someone watching your back for missiles and aircraft from that far away who isn't likely going to get distracted because someone took a shot at him, it's a powerful ally. Knowing which group of enemy aircraft to target, where SAM sites are, how long an enemy aircraft has been flying (and thus how much fuel they might have left), and other tactical information helps enormously, and anyone fielding F-22s is going to have one or two AWACS planes up there guiding things.
I should hope they're already there. After all, if the computer's maps say that the speed limit is 45 and the town has recently lowered it to 35, it should be able to read the sign and take that number over what it knows. New streets could still present a challenge, though.
Besides, I didn't say that GPS was the only means. They have cameras and other sensors for a reason. But navigating a parking lot is not the same as navigating a road and has different challenges.
Shot down? Hardly. They just track you, maybe intercept you with a plane or helicopter, and follow you down to where police and the FAA are waiting. In any case, there's no such thing as "commercial airspace." What you're probably thinking of is the Class B airspace that's around major airports like LAX, San Diego, and Chicago. There's nothing prohibiting me from flying there so long as I have permission to do so. Class C airspace such as around John Wayne Airport in Orange County merely requires that they acknowledge me by tail number. So long as I hear at least, "Skyhawk 13974, stand by," I can enter the airspace. Likewise for the Class D airspace around smaller airports. Class E airspace requires even less communication--most of Southern California is encompassed in it and it's there primarily so instrument flights know where they'll have confirmed ATC coverage. I fly through it with zero contact after leaving the airport all the time.
Besides, flying is hardly a "closed track." I practice over populated portions of the city of La Habra at altitudes varying from 1500 feet to 3500 feet. Stalls, steep turns, practice power loss, and all without any communications with ATC. Oh, I call out occasionally to let people know where I am, but that's strongly recommended, not mandatory. I do it primarily in case I'm in someone's blind spot. If I lose complete control, I'm probably coming down on someone's house. Individually, I may not pose as much threat, but what I do is more dangerous on a per travel mile to me and to my passengers, and maybe to people on the ground.
It wasn't luck that the carpool lane was empty. It was a fact of the time of day (or night in this case) that it was basically unused. I was aware of it as I try to maintain a position in lanes that allows me the room to maneuver if necessary without hitting something to the side. I'm uncomfortable driving when that's not an option and I'm going more than about 35MPH.
Most losses of control happen from improper maneuvers, like swerving but not turning the car back toward the original direction of travel. There are a lot of cases where swerving is not the optimal choice but people do it anyway. I've seen a couple of accidents that could have been avoided if the person had swerved into the shoulder, and I've done the same thing not because I was forced to do so but because I deemed it prudent as traffic was packed too tightly for everyone to be sure of safely stopping. I got myself out of the way and gave other drivers behind me another car-length of stopping distance. An auto-driving car should take such factors into account as it's not always that you're going to hit someone else, but that someone may hit you.
Most vehicles today have very good stability. That stability, when measured many times per second, can be used to make maneuvers that on their own are abnormal or difficult for a normal person but perfectly safe for a professional driver or a computer. They may not happen as often, or they may happen more often. Only time will tell. But they must have the ability to do so because braking on its own isn't always the best reaction.
I fly a small plane for fun. I'm certainly more dangerous up there than a military or airline pilot, and it's far less efficient.
At some point, you have to let people do what they're going to do even if there's some measurable risk to the public. It's a fine balancing act sometimes, but it's also part of a free society.
Eventually, yes. But your statement was paying off all outstanding debts on the first of the month. Making a mortgage payment does not absolve you of the remaining debt unless it happens to be your final payment.
And you're a self-driving car engineer? There are plenty of cases where swerving is the better choice. I've experienced it myself where while braking and swerving, I missed by maybe a foot or two another car that jumped into my lane and slammed on the brakes even though he had plenty of space in front of him. The carpool lane was fortunately empty and all that happened to me was a jolt of adrenaline, but it's one example where swerving is necessary. There are others that involve objects falling off of other vehicles and debris in the roadway that wasn't visible because of other vehicles. They're fairly rare per mile driven, but still happen often enough that swerving is a viable and useful reaction. Autodrivers will presumably be better at it because they can take into account which lanes are actually open and react like a prepared professional--or better.
For the foreseeable future, there will be times when it's necessary to disable the autodriver. New roads that aren't in the GPS system, for example, or private driving areas (e.g., parking lots) that aren't well-mapped.
And sometimes it's just more fun to drive the car yourself.
It's an organization that has as its main purpose defending the nation. Back then, there was a lot of concern about nuclear holocaust and most people were certain that it was just a matter of time until one side or the other lit the fuse. Knowing what would be usable afterward and what would be dangerous was critical knowledge if society was to rebuild itself.
By the mid-1950s, it was becoming common knowledge that smokers had a far higher chance of developing lung cancer. Within the scientific community, that had been known for a couple of decades. The tobacco companies fought it, of course, playing up the calming effects of smoking, but even their own researchers were starting to confirm the health hazards by then.
The net separation speed from an outside reference is 2c. However, the relative separation speed from a photon in either beam is c because of time dilation. (I'm ignoring the stopping of time at c for demonstration purposes.)
As a few others have stated, there are good unions and bad unions, at least in the US. In general, I respect the nurses' unions. Their demands are usually not only in favor of the nurses but also the patients. Occasionally they defend someone who really shouldn't be in medicine, but by and large, they seem to do a good job.
My dad used to be a staunch union guy. He was in aerospace for about 25 years and there were a lot of layoffs and strikes back in the '80s. One day, while on the picket line, the union leadership showed up in limos and wearing some very fancy clothes and expensive jewelry. They made some comments about how important it was that the lines be respected and how they would win eventually. My parents were facing some difficult times because union strike wages were (and are) a pittance of normal wages and he had three kids to feed. He went home that night, bothered by the union leadership and how much money was going to them and their secure positions. The next day, he crossed the picket lines and went back to work and never participated in another strike.
There were repercussions. Some work friends stopped talking to him. There were veiled threats. But as he was 6'1", a big guy, and a biker, no one actually messed with him directly. But he knew others who crossed the lines and found tires deflated or slashed, cars keyed, or who were sometimes "warned" in very physical ways. This, and my own experiences as a contractor in union workplaces, has led me to be very suspicious of unions in general and not in favor of working somewhere that requires union membership.
I recognize the role that unions played in creating fair workplaces and I respect those who were injured and even killed by employers trying to resist the unions. But ultimately, I regard the need to unionize as a failure of the employer to keep the employees happy. Sometimes that's not entirely the fault of employers, but in most cases, the employers could have headed off the need for a union long before the vote to unionize.
This demo is kind of sad because they have a division that really does understand security. It's made up primarily of people and products that were acquired (IntruShield through IntruVert and Sidewinder/Firewall Enterprise through Secure Computing), but they're still McAfee at least in name.
In some ways, yes, it is. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan were groups of groups. Some of them were friendly to the West, some at least as hostile as the Soviet hardliners. Their unifying principle was the fight against the Soviets. Eventually, they turned on each other until the Taliban came along, then they chose sides again.
Libya is similar, though with a population that is generally more metropolitan. Afghanistan's people are generally insular, focused on very local or regional activity. Libya has long been used to working with the world and as such, have a better grasp of how important it is to settle down.
The problem is that Gaddafi never trusted his military and so kept it weak so that it couldn't mount a coup, and the remaining institutions are similarly weak for the moment. He relied on family members running hand-picked units and on mercenary groups from around Africa such as the Tuaregs that have caused problems recently in Niger, Mali, and Algeria. These groups now have nothing to do but fight and/or sell weapons to try to earn or steal money. A few long-oppressed groups and former Gaddafi loyalists have also armed up, and groups like the Salafists that dream of instituting worldwide Sharia are doing the same. The Salafists are causing their own set of problems in Tunisia and Egypt as well, and have turned up in Syria where the Free Syrian Army (or the group formerly known as such) is trying to figure out how to distance them without alienating them.
Most of Libya is happy and wants a quiet life with a return of international trade. Until national institutions like the military and police are strengthened appropriately, there will be groups that do as they will and cause mayhem and death. This has been happening for the last year, but it's only now that the US has been caught up in it.
It happens on a pretty regular basis, actually. The popular idea that China is a dictatorship with an iron grip on the populace is a simplistic farce. Yes, there is a strong concentration of power, but even then, the government often bows to the will of the people when they organize demonstrations. This has happened over real estate deals where farmers got the (very) short end of the stick, where corrupt police and local officials have abused their powers, and even over water rights. Some of this is to allow the people to let off some steam so it doesn't turn into a general backlash, but it's also because ultimately, five million military and police are no match for a billion people who want to change directions.
That's exactly my point, much as you might attempt to trivialize it. I don't have a problem with the watermarking because the rootkit behavior is so much more severe in comparison. I don't see why anyone else would get bent out of shape over the watermarking if they're willing to put up with the rootkit.
Blizzard has to deal with cheaters on a scale never before encountered by any game company. Even at the CS cheating peak when it rolled out PunkBuster, Valve never had to deal with as many cheaters in one game. Because of the economic incentives, gold farmers and others have tried with varying degrees of success to get past the protections in the game. Blizzard has made it reasonably clear that it takes certain actions to find cheaters, some of which are fairly rootkit-like in their implementation and ability, and that it does not disclose all of these methods to the end-user.
Personally, I don't see a problem with this. I find the rootkit behavior a much bigger issue, but I'm willing to live with that in part because I know so many people at Blizzard (and I'm not just talking about a few customer service or QA people) and I trust that they're not going to do evil things with that ability. If they're willing to have that level of inspection on their computers, I don't see why there's so much fuss over the watermarking.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it from reading a few other articles, there still exists the challenge of getting past the barrier of infinite energy required to even match the speed of light. Perhaps there will be found a way to tunnel past it, but I expect that while all the math may work neatly, actually breaking through is going to be nearly impossible. Then there's the problem of slowing down which means tunneling back through the other way.
Much as I've been warned off by the articles that claim the paper to be fairly impenetrable to non-mathematicians, I'm tempted to pay the $30 to get the article anyway.
The R-37 is an interesting missile, but the range is, in some ways, probably not terribly useful to a nation like Syria with a small area over which to fight. The extreme range version (R-37M) is apparently only being tested this year in Russia, and I don't think Russia is sending many advanced weapons down to Syria right now with the arms embargo in place. Most active radar homing missiles don't use it for the entire flight profile, relying on the launch platform's radar for all but the terminal portion of the flight.
That puts a Syrian fighter in a difficult situation of maintaining a lock on the AWACS plane (if it can get it) for a minute or more (I calculate a run at the max range to take about three minutes), and that's a long time in a hostile environment if enemies are close: a couple of fighters with Sparrow or AMRAAM 20-30 miles away could probably take down the launcher before terminal phase was entered, depending on the launcher's range from the AWACS.
It would make for a tremendous morale booster for anyone that did shoot one down, but it might also cause some redoubling of the efforts to destroy the air force involved.
I'm not voting either side because of the ad. What I am going to do is write a letter and mail it to the address on the site (since I expect the email inboxes will be full and they're not terribly computer-savvy anyway) and explain to them just how out-of-touch this makes them--and every other Republican to many people--look to a younger generation. Maybe I'll even get a response. It would be amusing.
I haven't seen much on the data link except about the exercises in Alaska. As I understand it, the Red Force Raptors weren't allowed to rearm or regenerate without landing through at least one part, so they went into a standoff mode and played controller for the allied forces, using their more advanced (and presumably harder to track) radars to help guide in planes without their own radars on. I don't know for certain that they were sharing over the data link, but it seems likely as it would be easier on all involved, suggesting a more robust system than previously mounted on fighters.
Having AWACS is like having a carrier: it's a big, expensive target that's hard to defend and a waste of resources if you don't know how and where to use them. China knows that about its carriers and they're not going to be terribly useful for at least another decade, more likely two. Until then, they'll be sheltered and should war break out, will be used as mobile airbases instead of force projection. There's a subtle difference there, but it's present.
AWACS is the same. The planes cost a lot of money, can be large, and are generally highly vulnerable. But if you know how and where to use them, they mean the entire battle. When you're able to coordinate a hundred aircraft, skirt your ground-skimmers around newly-found SAMs, maneuver your higher aircraft around enemy planes (or at least their missile ranges), and then help them fight their way back out all because you have a superior battlefield view and asset knowledge while usually flying outside the range of any known air-to-air missile. But you have to put it all together, and it takes a lot of training and experience.
They were heading in to a specific target located in a small patch of land. That's different from trying to knock out the Syrian military or enforcing a no-fly zone. This is the first I've heard of Suter, and after looking it up (what meager resources there are on it) I agree it would certainly be useful. I still think there would be enormous risk, especially since not all NATO aircraft would have it. As I read it, only a few US aircraft have it, though Israel seems to have something similar (or maybe stolen). The Wild Weasels might have fun with it, but I'm not sure the average Eagle is going to be take solace in it.
You clearly didn't read the post to which I was responding and which I directly quoted which suggested that a large group of inexpensive ("$10 million") MiGs with pilots willing to do anything to get a kill (presumably including suicide ramming tactics) to take down a smaller group of F-15s and -22s. Since you're working in the realm of reality and not the fantasy of that poster, we can have a more intelligent discussion.
I'm aware that no one actually flies that kind of grouping. But planes like the F-15 and F-16 will sometimes be grouped on missions with F-22s if only for simple numbers (many more non-stealth than Raptors in the inventory). The Eagle and Falcon have the advantage of raw firepower because their stealth signatures aren't as big an issue, and if it's a strike mission, they're able to carry many more bombs than an F-22 while still maintaining a credible air-to-air capability. Raptors would likely be flying complementary air superiority (or cover for them if on a strike mission), perhaps even using the others as long-range radar bait to draw enemy fighters in a chosen direction before moving in to pick them off. In either case, there will be enough distance between the aircraft types to allow the Raptors to be within support distance without nullifying their stealth advantage.
Combined with AWACS to give battle control, any credible aerial threat is going to have a very, very difficult time knocking down even one plane, let alone making a significant dent in the force. The only credible threat to have significant AWACS experience is Russia; China is likely still figuring out how to effectively use it (much like they will be with their carriers for the next two decades) and Iran doesn't have much experience with it.
Once the aerial threat is neutralized in an offensive mission, taking out the ground targets becomes a lot easier (especially with the SDB in inventory now), though by no means a slam dunk. It's one of the reasons no one is getting involved in a Syrian no-fly zone: the place is so dense with antiaircraft defenses that there aren't really enough cruise missiles to do the job and inevitably manned planes have to fly in and take out the targets, putting them at risk, especially if they end up in the cross-hairs of an S-300 system.
I know a fair amount about this. I've had an interest in military aircraft since I was about seven and have tracked them ever since.
Internally, the F-22 can carry six AMRAAMs plus two Sidewinders. They also have a gun with a few hundred rounds and in exercises have been able to sneak up on their targets and get into dogfight range without being detected until the first kill. But the OP mentioned "ONE F-22 and a bunch of F-15s" and the F-15s can each carry eight AMRAAMs (though a load-out of four AMRAAMs and four Sidewinders is more likely). So let's say that it's one F-22 and a dozen F-15s. That's a combined 104 missiles capable of solid engagement ranges from dogfight out to over 150km. Against MiG-23s, the odds are so slim that one will even get a chance to damage one of the F-22/F-15 air fleet that they may as well not even go up. This isn't factoring in the ability of the F-22/F-15 group to speed out to the MiGs, down them, speed back, and rearm, and get back in the air before the remaining MiGs (if any) can even get close enough to make the airfield nervous.
The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat. The F-22 is even better. No cheap MiG is likely to do any better in the future than any that have tried in the past.
I don't think so. I don't know for sure that the $190M F-22 is six times better than a $30M F-15, but it's a lot more than 19 times better than the MiGs it's likely to face. Oh, maybe not the MiG-29, where it's perhaps only eight or ten times better, but the F-22 has the ability to knock you down from 60 miles out (around 100 miles when the AMRAAM-D comes along). Even one F-22 and a few F-15s would make short work of 20+ MiGs at $10M each since at that price, you're using comparatively ancient MiG-23s and not even MiG-29s, which cost three times as much.
Besides, the factor you missed is AWACS. That's a force multiplier of unbelievable proportion. Iraq learned that the hard way twice. When you have someone watching your back for missiles and aircraft from that far away who isn't likely going to get distracted because someone took a shot at him, it's a powerful ally. Knowing which group of enemy aircraft to target, where SAM sites are, how long an enemy aircraft has been flying (and thus how much fuel they might have left), and other tactical information helps enormously, and anyone fielding F-22s is going to have one or two AWACS planes up there guiding things.
I should hope they're already there. After all, if the computer's maps say that the speed limit is 45 and the town has recently lowered it to 35, it should be able to read the sign and take that number over what it knows. New streets could still present a challenge, though.
Besides, I didn't say that GPS was the only means. They have cameras and other sensors for a reason. But navigating a parking lot is not the same as navigating a road and has different challenges.
Shot down? Hardly. They just track you, maybe intercept you with a plane or helicopter, and follow you down to where police and the FAA are waiting. In any case, there's no such thing as "commercial airspace." What you're probably thinking of is the Class B airspace that's around major airports like LAX, San Diego, and Chicago. There's nothing prohibiting me from flying there so long as I have permission to do so. Class C airspace such as around John Wayne Airport in Orange County merely requires that they acknowledge me by tail number. So long as I hear at least, "Skyhawk 13974, stand by," I can enter the airspace. Likewise for the Class D airspace around smaller airports. Class E airspace requires even less communication--most of Southern California is encompassed in it and it's there primarily so instrument flights know where they'll have confirmed ATC coverage. I fly through it with zero contact after leaving the airport all the time.
Besides, flying is hardly a "closed track." I practice over populated portions of the city of La Habra at altitudes varying from 1500 feet to 3500 feet. Stalls, steep turns, practice power loss, and all without any communications with ATC. Oh, I call out occasionally to let people know where I am, but that's strongly recommended, not mandatory. I do it primarily in case I'm in someone's blind spot. If I lose complete control, I'm probably coming down on someone's house. Individually, I may not pose as much threat, but what I do is more dangerous on a per travel mile to me and to my passengers, and maybe to people on the ground.
It wasn't luck that the carpool lane was empty. It was a fact of the time of day (or night in this case) that it was basically unused. I was aware of it as I try to maintain a position in lanes that allows me the room to maneuver if necessary without hitting something to the side. I'm uncomfortable driving when that's not an option and I'm going more than about 35MPH.
Most losses of control happen from improper maneuvers, like swerving but not turning the car back toward the original direction of travel. There are a lot of cases where swerving is not the optimal choice but people do it anyway. I've seen a couple of accidents that could have been avoided if the person had swerved into the shoulder, and I've done the same thing not because I was forced to do so but because I deemed it prudent as traffic was packed too tightly for everyone to be sure of safely stopping. I got myself out of the way and gave other drivers behind me another car-length of stopping distance. An auto-driving car should take such factors into account as it's not always that you're going to hit someone else, but that someone may hit you.
Most vehicles today have very good stability. That stability, when measured many times per second, can be used to make maneuvers that on their own are abnormal or difficult for a normal person but perfectly safe for a professional driver or a computer. They may not happen as often, or they may happen more often. Only time will tell. But they must have the ability to do so because braking on its own isn't always the best reaction.
I fly a small plane for fun. I'm certainly more dangerous up there than a military or airline pilot, and it's far less efficient.
At some point, you have to let people do what they're going to do even if there's some measurable risk to the public. It's a fine balancing act sometimes, but it's also part of a free society.
Eventually, yes. But your statement was paying off all outstanding debts on the first of the month. Making a mortgage payment does not absolve you of the remaining debt unless it happens to be your final payment.
And you're a self-driving car engineer? There are plenty of cases where swerving is the better choice. I've experienced it myself where while braking and swerving, I missed by maybe a foot or two another car that jumped into my lane and slammed on the brakes even though he had plenty of space in front of him. The carpool lane was fortunately empty and all that happened to me was a jolt of adrenaline, but it's one example where swerving is necessary. There are others that involve objects falling off of other vehicles and debris in the roadway that wasn't visible because of other vehicles. They're fairly rare per mile driven, but still happen often enough that swerving is a viable and useful reaction. Autodrivers will presumably be better at it because they can take into account which lanes are actually open and react like a prepared professional--or better.
For the foreseeable future, there will be times when it's necessary to disable the autodriver. New roads that aren't in the GPS system, for example, or private driving areas (e.g., parking lots) that aren't well-mapped.
And sometimes it's just more fun to drive the car yourself.
Most people can't pay off their entire mortgage on the first of the month.
It's an organization that has as its main purpose defending the nation. Back then, there was a lot of concern about nuclear holocaust and most people were certain that it was just a matter of time until one side or the other lit the fuse. Knowing what would be usable afterward and what would be dangerous was critical knowledge if society was to rebuild itself.
By the mid-1950s, it was becoming common knowledge that smokers had a far higher chance of developing lung cancer. Within the scientific community, that had been known for a couple of decades. The tobacco companies fought it, of course, playing up the calming effects of smoking, but even their own researchers were starting to confirm the health hazards by then.
The net separation speed from an outside reference is 2c. However, the relative separation speed from a photon in either beam is c because of time dilation. (I'm ignoring the stopping of time at c for demonstration purposes.)
As a few others have stated, there are good unions and bad unions, at least in the US. In general, I respect the nurses' unions. Their demands are usually not only in favor of the nurses but also the patients. Occasionally they defend someone who really shouldn't be in medicine, but by and large, they seem to do a good job.
My dad used to be a staunch union guy. He was in aerospace for about 25 years and there were a lot of layoffs and strikes back in the '80s. One day, while on the picket line, the union leadership showed up in limos and wearing some very fancy clothes and expensive jewelry. They made some comments about how important it was that the lines be respected and how they would win eventually. My parents were facing some difficult times because union strike wages were (and are) a pittance of normal wages and he had three kids to feed. He went home that night, bothered by the union leadership and how much money was going to them and their secure positions. The next day, he crossed the picket lines and went back to work and never participated in another strike.
There were repercussions. Some work friends stopped talking to him. There were veiled threats. But as he was 6'1", a big guy, and a biker, no one actually messed with him directly. But he knew others who crossed the lines and found tires deflated or slashed, cars keyed, or who were sometimes "warned" in very physical ways. This, and my own experiences as a contractor in union workplaces, has led me to be very suspicious of unions in general and not in favor of working somewhere that requires union membership.
I recognize the role that unions played in creating fair workplaces and I respect those who were injured and even killed by employers trying to resist the unions. But ultimately, I regard the need to unionize as a failure of the employer to keep the employees happy. Sometimes that's not entirely the fault of employers, but in most cases, the employers could have headed off the need for a union long before the vote to unionize.
This demo is kind of sad because they have a division that really does understand security. It's made up primarily of people and products that were acquired (IntruShield through IntruVert and Sidewinder/Firewall Enterprise through Secure Computing), but they're still McAfee at least in name.
Even better: running it in a virtual machine and taking a screenshot of the VM console.
In some ways, yes, it is. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan were groups of groups. Some of them were friendly to the West, some at least as hostile as the Soviet hardliners. Their unifying principle was the fight against the Soviets. Eventually, they turned on each other until the Taliban came along, then they chose sides again.
Libya is similar, though with a population that is generally more metropolitan. Afghanistan's people are generally insular, focused on very local or regional activity. Libya has long been used to working with the world and as such, have a better grasp of how important it is to settle down.
The problem is that Gaddafi never trusted his military and so kept it weak so that it couldn't mount a coup, and the remaining institutions are similarly weak for the moment. He relied on family members running hand-picked units and on mercenary groups from around Africa such as the Tuaregs that have caused problems recently in Niger, Mali, and Algeria. These groups now have nothing to do but fight and/or sell weapons to try to earn or steal money. A few long-oppressed groups and former Gaddafi loyalists have also armed up, and groups like the Salafists that dream of instituting worldwide Sharia are doing the same. The Salafists are causing their own set of problems in Tunisia and Egypt as well, and have turned up in Syria where the Free Syrian Army (or the group formerly known as such) is trying to figure out how to distance them without alienating them.
Most of Libya is happy and wants a quiet life with a return of international trade. Until national institutions like the military and police are strengthened appropriately, there will be groups that do as they will and cause mayhem and death. This has been happening for the last year, but it's only now that the US has been caught up in it.
It happens on a pretty regular basis, actually. The popular idea that China is a dictatorship with an iron grip on the populace is a simplistic farce. Yes, there is a strong concentration of power, but even then, the government often bows to the will of the people when they organize demonstrations. This has happened over real estate deals where farmers got the (very) short end of the stick, where corrupt police and local officials have abused their powers, and even over water rights. Some of this is to allow the people to let off some steam so it doesn't turn into a general backlash, but it's also because ultimately, five million military and police are no match for a billion people who want to change directions.
That's exactly my point, much as you might attempt to trivialize it. I don't have a problem with the watermarking because the rootkit behavior is so much more severe in comparison. I don't see why anyone else would get bent out of shape over the watermarking if they're willing to put up with the rootkit.
Blizzard has to deal with cheaters on a scale never before encountered by any game company. Even at the CS cheating peak when it rolled out PunkBuster, Valve never had to deal with as many cheaters in one game. Because of the economic incentives, gold farmers and others have tried with varying degrees of success to get past the protections in the game. Blizzard has made it reasonably clear that it takes certain actions to find cheaters, some of which are fairly rootkit-like in their implementation and ability, and that it does not disclose all of these methods to the end-user.
Personally, I don't see a problem with this. I find the rootkit behavior a much bigger issue, but I'm willing to live with that in part because I know so many people at Blizzard (and I'm not just talking about a few customer service or QA people) and I trust that they're not going to do evil things with that ability. If they're willing to have that level of inspection on their computers, I don't see why there's so much fuss over the watermarking.