Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.
Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.
If the drone is sort of an aerial claymore mine then precise targeting is not quite required.
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....
Hunters routinely knock large birds (duck, geese) out of the sky at thirty-something yards with shotguns.
We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.
I'm quite familiar with the spread from skeet shooting. The fast part too, but not the changing course part. However actual hunters seem to manage that at thirty-something yards, and its not like the military is lacking in guys who have shot a large bird or two.
FWIW, during WW2 the gunners for the bomber crews started their training by shooting skeet. However in round two of training they shot skeet while standing in the beds of moving trucks, shooting at a moving target while in motion themselves.
I would not be surprised if designing the right load is more of a problem than training a sufficient number of soldiers.
if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down?
Shotgun, hunting loads for duck, geese. Maybe we'll see some long barreled shotguns being issued to troops. Or maybe 40mm rounds for M203s, they have buckshot rounds, they would just need some large bird shot rounds?
I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.
Human's can't make magnets. We don't even know how they work.
You never wrapped wire around a big-ass nail and connected it to a 6V battery?
I believe there are mechanical methods too, for example rubbing a sewing needle with silks/wool/etc to make a compass needle. Did that in scouts long ago.
I have some faint recollection of something involving hammering but it was never demonstrated or tried, just mentioned.
Firefighting also increases forest fire size. Attacking nearly every fire allows flammable materials to collect, we end up trading a series of small fires for a very large conflagration when an area eventually burns.
There is some debate about being less aggressive and to allow a process closer to natural, but development and the protection of structures complicates things.
So man made causes, those of a climate change variety and others are both at work. It would be interesting to see how they separate the two. Plus increased human activity in an area also increases fire risks, from unsupervised campfires to bad mufflers on dirt bikes and atvs. Its not as simple as saying there was an increase from 3M to 10M acres over the last 30 years. I've witness a lot of increased development and increased human activity in southern california hills that are prone to wild fires.
I also worked a wild fire once... as a scuba diver... recovering and hooking up buckets helicopters dropped (if a lift doesn't feel right its a safety precaution, quick detach cable and try again) into a lake being used as a water source. Take that myth busters, scuba diver in a tree at a forest fire, plausible.:-)
So they current have US and Canadian developers and might be adding EU developers. Maybe they want to sell their machines in the EU? Just offering another possibility to investigate.
Proprietary machines and software have no place in a Democracy (or a Democratic Republic). But they have very important roles in a plutocracy.
Proprietary software can have its source code inspected and modified by its customers. It just requires a source code license rather than a binary license. It happens all the time. Open source is not the only way to verify and have control of the software.
Perhaps you do not understand the nature of open source. The physical location of the programmers does not matter. Anyone from around the world can see and make contributions to the code base. Instead of relying on "Trust", the code can be vetted and verified by candidates, political parties or anyone interested.
Open source is not required to verify the source code. Proprietary closed (as in no outside modifications) can be published for public inspection. The public can build a binary to compare against what is on the machine. However the public needs no right to modify or redistribute to do so.
For many decades some proprietary software has been available under both binary and source codes licenses. The later allowing the license holders to view and modify the source code. It is usually much more expensive but worth it in my opinion. It allows one to incorporate proprietary software into one's product and not be utterly dependent on the vendor for bug fixes. In other words it lets one retain control of one's project. This could also be a non-FOSS option for a government agency.
Where is Microsoft's source repository? They're making all of this GPL code available on a commercial basis. I believe that this makes them responsible for making a source repository available. (been a while since I (re) read the pertinent sections of the GPL.
They don't need one. They are not modifying these tools so you can go to Ubuntu's repository. If you asked MS for the source they could fulfill their GPL obligation by referring you to Ubuntu's.
Note that they do not use the Linux kernel. They have alternative code for providing the necessary Linux APIs for the tools.
My Windows boxes at home and work have dual booted since the mid 90s. Even at companies whose software products targeted Windows only. Occasionally a task was better performed under *nix. I also try to separate UI and core code in projects and build/test the core code under both Windows and Linux. Crossplatform builds/testing is a nice way to find some bugs, some bugs are difficult to manifest in one environment and turn out to manifest easily in the other.
Although to be honest the cross platform stuff worked best when I had a Mac around and could also target a completely different architecture, 68K or PPC CPUs back in the day. Admittedly it was easier to get an extra hard drive for Linux than a Mac. Fortunately at some of these jobs we also had Mac products.
No-one has the knowledge and skills to write 100% correct programs in general without help. You don't. I don't. No-one does. It is simply beyond human capabilities, because we make mistakes. Arguing for a world that is based on unrealistic assumptions is futile. Better, IMHO, to argue for how to improve the world we actually have.
To that end, my position is still that C is a needlessly weak and dangerous programming language by modern standards, and as evidence, I cite once again the fact that so many system programs written in C have had serious bugs that could have been prevented in a safer language.
I agree with you to a degree, but I see the other "memory unsafe" language as the best solution, C++. Judicious use of C++ capabilities goes a long way to addressing C's shortcomings. I now use a modern "memory safe" language for iOS and macOS user interface programming, Swift. I would probably only use C in a RAM constrained embedded arduino sort-of environment to reduce library footprint. And I use Java for Android user interface programming and Amazon Web Services programming, although C++ may be mature enough for the later now.
Having a bit of experience with this range modern/legacy safe/unsafe languages I see only one real advantage to the modern languages. The increasing number of amateurs developing software, from the perspective of an Apple Inc providing a language with training wheels is a great idea. However for the knowledgable and experienced a language like C++ is probably superior and with a little programmer care memory can be handled safely.
Most problems with C++ are inappropriate or excessive use of some feature. That does not mean the feature is bad, just that a person is making poor implementation choices. Someone new to C++ is like someone new to word processors. Their first few documents have way too many fonts and size changes and colors. The author is excited at all the choices and wants to use them all. With a little more experience they calm down and become more selective in their use of features and produce better results.
Perhaps, but when close to 100% of a population have the same trait, arguments that the trait should be changed rather than designing tools and processes that accommodate that trait are unrealistic and therefore not very useful.
What trait? A lack of knowledge and skill? A need for "training wheels"?
Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing against a modern language, I switched from Objective-C to Swift for iOS/macOS user interface coding. What I am arguing is that languages like C/C++ are not bad nor flawed as originally suggested. As another poster wrote, "Bjarne said it best", check out his post:
Slashdot Mirror
30 yards is about the range of a hand grenade explosion, that is simply not enough.
US frag grenades have a lethal range of 5 meters and a wounding range of 15 meters.
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you.
Have you ever flown a drone? They don't just home in on a hidden target like in the movies. And if the target is in the open, you are much better off with the RPG.
If the drone is sort of an aerial claymore mine then precise targeting is not quite required.
Shotgun.
Never fired a shotgon at a fast moving target (or at all?) have you. You certainly don't understand much about the correlation between range and shot spread anyway....
Hunters routinely knock large birds (duck, geese) out of the sky at thirty-something yards with shotguns.
We have read about drones being taken out by shotguns but they have a lot less spread than you think, and the more the spread the quicker they lose effect.
I'm quite familiar with the spread from skeet shooting. The fast part too, but not the changing course part. However actual hunters seem to manage that at thirty-something yards, and its not like the military is lacking in guys who have shot a large bird or two.
FWIW, during WW2 the gunners for the bomber crews started their training by shooting skeet. However in round two of training they shot skeet while standing in the beds of moving trucks, shooting at a moving target while in motion themselves.
I would not be surprised if designing the right load is more of a problem than training a sufficient number of soldiers.
if a drone is moving fast and erratically enough, how could you even shoot it down?
Shotgun, hunting loads for duck, geese. Maybe we'll see some long barreled shotguns being issued to troops. Or maybe 40mm rounds for M203s, they have buckshot rounds, they would just need some large bird shot rounds?
I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Human's can't make magnets. We don't even know how they work.
You never wrapped wire around a big-ass nail and connected it to a 6V battery?
I believe there are mechanical methods too, for example rubbing a sewing needle with silks/wool/etc to make a compass needle. Did that in scouts long ago.
I have some faint recollection of something involving hammering but it was never demonstrated or tried, just mentioned.
Actually I think that they figured out that magnetic fields involve an exchange of photons.
France and Germany reconciled, why not Serbia and the EU?
Firefighting also increases forest fire size. Attacking nearly every fire allows flammable materials to collect, we end up trading a series of small fires for a very large conflagration when an area eventually burns.
... as a scuba diver ... recovering and hooking up buckets helicopters dropped (if a lift doesn't feel right its a safety precaution, quick detach cable and try again) into a lake being used as a water source. Take that myth busters, scuba diver in a tree at a forest fire, plausible. :-)
There is some debate about being less aggressive and to allow a process closer to natural, but development and the protection of structures complicates things.
So man made causes, those of a climate change variety and others are both at work. It would be interesting to see how they separate the two. Plus increased human activity in an area also increases fire risks, from unsupervised campfires to bad mufflers on dirt bikes and atvs. Its not as simple as saying there was an increase from 3M to 10M acres over the last 30 years. I've witness a lot of increased development and increased human activity in southern california hills that are prone to wild fires.
I also worked a wild fire once
Serbia is not in the EU.
Not yet, it is however a candidate working through the process.
Only when it comes to elections, the population are really the customer..
No. The customers are the government officials running the election. Citizens are users of this government equipment, the voting "machine".
So they current have US and Canadian developers and might be adding EU developers. Maybe they want to sell their machines in the EU? Just offering another possibility to investigate.
Proprietary machines and software have no place in a Democracy (or a Democratic Republic). But they have very important roles in a plutocracy.
Proprietary software can have its source code inspected and modified by its customers. It just requires a source code license rather than a binary license. It happens all the time. Open source is not the only way to verify and have control of the software.
Perhaps you do not understand the nature of open source. The physical location of the programmers does not matter. Anyone from around the world can see and make contributions to the code base. Instead of relying on "Trust", the code can be vetted and verified by candidates, political parties or anyone interested.
Open source is not required to verify the source code. Proprietary closed (as in no outside modifications) can be published for public inspection. The public can build a binary to compare against what is on the machine. However the public needs no right to modify or redistribute to do so.
For many decades some proprietary software has been available under both binary and source codes licenses. The later allowing the license holders to view and modify the source code. It is usually much more expensive but worth it in my opinion. It allows one to incorporate proprietary software into one's product and not be utterly dependent on the vendor for bug fixes. In other words it lets one retain control of one's project. This could also be a non-FOSS option for a government agency.
Its like "linux", which can refer to either the kernel or the complete operating system. :-)
Where is Microsoft's source repository? They're making all of this GPL code available on a commercial basis. I believe that this makes them responsible for making a source repository available. (been a while since I (re) read the pertinent sections of the GPL.
They don't need one. They are not modifying these tools so you can go to Ubuntu's repository. If you asked MS for the source they could fulfill their GPL obligation by referring you to Ubuntu's.
Note that they do not use the Linux kernel. They have alternative code for providing the necessary Linux APIs for the tools.
My Windows boxes at home and work have dual booted since the mid 90s. Even at companies whose software products targeted Windows only. Occasionally a task was better performed under *nix. I also try to separate UI and core code in projects and build/test the core code under both Windows and Linux. Crossplatform builds/testing is a nice way to find some bugs, some bugs are difficult to manifest in one environment and turn out to manifest easily in the other.
Although to be honest the cross platform stuff worked best when I had a Mac around and could also target a completely different architecture, 68K or PPC CPUs back in the day. Admittedly it was easier to get an extra hard drive for Linux than a Mac. Fortunately at some of these jobs we also had Mac products.
It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
Whoosh?
Actually a double Whoosh. One statement poking fun at Windows and another statement poking fun at Linux.
No verbose boiler plate code needed when using C++. And there is an increase in utility and expressiveness.
No-one has the knowledge and skills to write 100% correct programs in general without help. You don't. I don't. No-one does. It is simply beyond human capabilities, because we make mistakes. Arguing for a world that is based on unrealistic assumptions is futile. Better, IMHO, to argue for how to improve the world we actually have.
To that end, my position is still that C is a needlessly weak and dangerous programming language by modern standards, and as evidence, I cite once again the fact that so many system programs written in C have had serious bugs that could have been prevented in a safer language.
I agree with you to a degree, but I see the other "memory unsafe" language as the best solution, C++. Judicious use of C++ capabilities goes a long way to addressing C's shortcomings. I now use a modern "memory safe" language for iOS and macOS user interface programming, Swift. I would probably only use C in a RAM constrained embedded arduino sort-of environment to reduce library footprint. And I use Java for Android user interface programming and Amazon Web Services programming, although C++ may be mature enough for the later now.
Having a bit of experience with this range modern/legacy safe/unsafe languages I see only one real advantage to the modern languages. The increasing number of amateurs developing software, from the perspective of an Apple Inc providing a language with training wheels is a great idea. However for the knowledgable and experienced a language like C++ is probably superior and with a little programmer care memory can be handled safely.
Judicious use of C++ features can automate much of the checking to avoid forgetting.
Pay them in Euros, that's one way to use the money accumulating in Ireland avoiding taxes upon repatriation. :-)
Most problems with C++ are inappropriate or excessive use of some feature. That does not mean the feature is bad, just that a person is making poor implementation choices. Someone new to C++ is like someone new to word processors. Their first few documents have way too many fonts and size changes and colors. The author is excited at all the choices and wants to use them all. With a little more experience they calm down and become more selective in their use of features and produce better results.
Perhaps, but when close to 100% of a population have the same trait, arguments that the trait should be changed rather than designing tools and processes that accommodate that trait are unrealistic and therefore not very useful.
What trait? A lack of knowledge and skill? A need for "training wheels"?
Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing against a modern language, I switched from Objective-C to Swift for iOS/macOS user interface coding. What I am arguing is that languages like C/C++ are not bad nor flawed as originally suggested. As another poster wrote, "Bjarne said it best", check out his post:
https://developers.slashdot.or...