The obvious trick would be to include a mass driver that shoots planetary probes. At the appropirate point of approach start shooting probes backwards, killing as much of the approach velocity as possible. With any luck and perigee/perihelion burns, perhaps the probes could achieve stellar orbit and send back more data.
That would be a good trick, maybe "nano-probes" that could be "shot" at 12.499999% of the speed of light in the opposite direction so they will be slow enough to be captured in orbit by the star?
We usually don't have surprise dates on "school nights". I thought he just wanted to keep me away from the State of the Union Show so I would not be grumpy the rest of the week.
It might not work as well as they think. I got this as I read down a bit:
First of all. Lets check if you're logged into GMail right now (not including Google Apps)... (Yes, you are logged in).
Actually, I am browsing with Chrome, but have not opened GMail in this session at all, not once since the reboot. Maybe it is something Chrome is doing, since I get "No, you're not logged in" while using the incognito window.
Says it would zoom past Barnard's Star in 50 years at 12.5% the speed of light because it is not designed to go into orbit. So, it is just getting a quick look there and everyplace else it travels. By the time this thing could be built, sensor technology might be up to the task.
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?
Evidence and I did not bother looking for it until 2 min. ago. They probably had it a good bit longer.
If that is all that it is, I see no problem in it. When I DO see a problem with it is when industry insiders use jobs as rewards for getting what they want out of government. Too many in government get cushy private sector jobs for themselves and even members of their families as a payoff for playing ball and THAT I do have a problem with.
And where will this guy's loyalty lie? Will it lie with Google and their customers? Or when one of his old spook buddies waltzes in and says "hey old buddy, we are needing some info on the quiet side. Can you help us out?" will he just walk outside for a long lunch break while his "friend" has access to his computer?
And the whole "taxing insecurity" is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard of! Talk about an easy way to take out your competitors, just pay a team of hackers to find bugs and voila! They are buried under so many taxes they go out of business! I mean who do you think could afford 20 million in fines more, a company like MSFT or Oracle, or your average Linux distro? Seems like a great way to take out the smaller weaker corps to me, just keep getting them hit with fines and then buy them out for cheap when they can't fight back anymore. If people want more security then they can buy it, it is JUST that simple.
Sounds like most of that is something for the employer to evaluate. In the US labor market the employers may demand zombies all they like but there is no guarantee that they get them.
According to your link the Chinese got that technology by reverse engineering a plane that had been shot down. What does that have to do with computer security?
Can you please reword or elaborate? I don't quite understand what you mean.
You must be kidding. I even quoted both the person you responded to and you also.
The NASA guy going to Apple is nothing more than some person getting a job he thinks is better, the same way I would do, maybe you too. Nobody should be denied the right to do that.
As private industry becomes the next government, more overtly as time goes on..
A little offtopiic here:
Isn't it weird how intelligent and skeptical people see it as "corporate takeover", and ignorant people believe corporations telling them that its a 'socialist takeover'.
From the looks of the lobbies and actual authors of bills, its hard to believe the latter -- but I suppose you'd believe anything if you don't question it.
The really basic individual rights issue is: What is so damn bad about someone wanting to leave a government job for a non government job?
You do realize that not only that but the F-117's were restricted to a very specific flight pattern flying over the exact same pass day and night over and over again.
He may have used some old equipment that had a different radar freq, but he also got lucky that Political stupidity played a major role(flights into and out of the region where very limited, which areas they could and couldn't fly over).
The Chinese fighter is larger and heavier than the Raptor. It doesn't use thrust vectoring nozzles, or even distributed nozzles to limit heat output by the engines. it is only stealthy head on, from any other angle it will be easy to spot. Those giant canards will also turn a very large radar reflection back too. It uses old school radar so it will be easy to track. All in all it isn't a bad attempt at an updated fighter for china, but it is two or three generations from being capable as the Typhon or raptor.
Not to mention this is the initial test flight. it will be ten years before they have decent production going. remember the raptor's flight demo for the USAF was in 1991, and the first production model flew in 1997.
Awesome! The secret stuff they did not have before they now have because of you!
My first though when I heard of the Chinese Stealth Fighter is I wonder where and how they stole the technology. No way China could build one themselves at this point without a little help. Not saying that they could not have built on further in the future on their own; only saying this was really quick.
Actually, their knockoff does not look like any of that F-117 angularity. It looks more like the newer ones that are rounded off.
Different wild guess, they looked at all of the "advertising" pictures the USA sent around of their new plane, took some of their own, paid off a few people and "poof" new airplane that looks like a USA plane. I wonder if the guts are the same?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you don't understand the meaning of "average".
It has 3 common meanings and the one they are using in TFA is not mentioned above.
My current crop of laptops is not that old yet. Will get back to you ;)
The obvious trick would be to include a mass driver that shoots planetary probes. At the appropirate point of approach start shooting probes backwards, killing as much of the approach velocity as possible. With any luck and perigee/perihelion burns, perhaps the probes could achieve stellar orbit and send back more data.
That would be a good trick, maybe "nano-probes" that could be "shot" at 12.499999% of the speed of light in the opposite direction so they will be slow enough to be captured in orbit by the star?
We usually don't have surprise dates on "school nights". I thought he just wanted to keep me away from the State of the Union Show so I would not be grumpy the rest of the week.
It might not work as well as they think. I got this as I read down a bit:
Actually, I am browsing with Chrome, but have not opened GMail in this session at all, not once since the reboot. Maybe it is something Chrome is doing, since I get "No, you're not logged in" while using the incognito window.
Or maybe not so major of a drawback.
Says it would zoom past Barnard's Star in 50 years at 12.5% the speed of light because it is not designed to go into orbit. So, it is just getting a quick look there and everyplace else it travels. By the time this thing could be built, sensor technology might be up to the task.
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?
Evidence and I did not bother looking for it until 2 min. ago. They probably had it a good bit longer.
I do enjoy my Facebook account. Being picky about my 4,000+ friends list really helps.
Never got into the PayPal.
Keith Olbermann will be tweeting the SOTU at #FOK I think.
Most of the people working at NASA are over 50 years old. Nobody new was hired for the past 15-20 years.
I think they were talking about the displays, not the employees.
Yea, the US just launched a rocket on 1-20-11 from Vandenberg.
Florida condos just in time for the housing bounce-back!
Sounds more like they need a government programme. What, you say? The BBC is a government programme? They need a bigger government programme.
You are truly easily entertained ;)
If that is all that it is, I see no problem in it. When I DO see a problem with it is when industry insiders use jobs as rewards for getting what they want out of government. Too many in government get cushy private sector jobs for themselves and even members of their families as a payoff for playing ball and THAT I do have a problem with.
And where will this guy's loyalty lie? Will it lie with Google and their customers? Or when one of his old spook buddies waltzes in and says "hey old buddy, we are needing some info on the quiet side. Can you help us out?" will he just walk outside for a long lunch break while his "friend" has access to his computer?
And the whole "taxing insecurity" is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard of! Talk about an easy way to take out your competitors, just pay a team of hackers to find bugs and voila! They are buried under so many taxes they go out of business! I mean who do you think could afford 20 million in fines more, a company like MSFT or Oracle, or your average Linux distro? Seems like a great way to take out the smaller weaker corps to me, just keep getting them hit with fines and then buy them out for cheap when they can't fight back anymore. If people want more security then they can buy it, it is JUST that simple.
Sounds like most of that is something for the employer to evaluate. In the US labor market the employers may demand zombies all they like but there is no guarantee that they get them.
Either way, no big deal. Moving to a new job that you want better should not be an impediment to what you want to do.
I"m not kidding.
kk
Boom.
Exactly!
According to your link the Chinese got that technology by reverse engineering a plane that had been shot down. What does that have to do with computer security?
That is what the link said. Look at what I said.
Can you please reword or elaborate? I don't quite understand what you mean.
You must be kidding. I even quoted both the person you responded to and you also.
The NASA guy going to Apple is nothing more than some person getting a job he thinks is better, the same way I would do, maybe you too. Nobody should be denied the right to do that.
Fart propulsion will give those sports fan boys the ecological advantage. Who wants that?
As private industry becomes the next government, more overtly as time goes on..
A little offtopiic here:
Isn't it weird how intelligent and skeptical people see it as "corporate takeover", and ignorant people believe corporations telling them that its a 'socialist takeover'.
From the looks of the lobbies and actual authors of bills, its hard to believe the latter -- but I suppose you'd believe anything if you don't question it.
The really basic individual rights issue is: What is so damn bad about someone wanting to leave a government job for a non government job?
I think he was the guy keeping the stealth secrets, don't worry so much.
You do realize that not only that but the F-117's were restricted to a very specific flight pattern flying over the exact same pass day and night over and over again.
He may have used some old equipment that had a different radar freq, but he also got lucky that Political stupidity played a major role(flights into and out of the region where very limited, which areas they could and couldn't fly over).
The Chinese fighter is larger and heavier than the Raptor. It doesn't use thrust vectoring nozzles, or even distributed nozzles to limit heat output by the engines. it is only stealthy head on, from any other angle it will be easy to spot. Those giant canards will also turn a very large radar reflection back too. It uses old school radar so it will be easy to track. All in all it isn't a bad attempt at an updated fighter for china, but it is two or three generations from being capable as the Typhon or raptor.
Not to mention this is the initial test flight. it will be ten years before they have decent production going. remember the raptor's flight demo for the USAF was in 1991, and the first production model flew in 1997.
Awesome! The secret stuff they did not have before they now have because of you!
Oh, /. is blocked in China? Sorry, never mind ;)
This shouldn't be a newsworthy headline. This is what a newsworthy headline would look like:
"Chinese Stealth Fighter Uses Only Chinese Technology"
The Onion version: "Chinese Stealth Fighter Uses Only North Korean Technology"
My first though when I heard of the Chinese Stealth Fighter is I wonder where and how they stole the technology. No way China could build one themselves at this point without a little help. Not saying that they could not have built on further in the future on their own; only saying this was really quick.
Actually, their knockoff does not look like any of that F-117 angularity. It looks more like the newer ones that are rounded off.
Different wild guess, they looked at all of the "advertising" pictures the USA sent around of their new plane, took some of their own, paid off a few people and "poof" new airplane that looks like a USA plane. I wonder if the guts are the same?