Maybe distro developers could try creating better ways of teaching the Linux directory structure instead of changing it. For example, a sidepane that appears in folder windows, describing the purpose of the folder currently being viewed. Or perhaps Windows-esque "tooltips" appearing over color-coded system folders that provide similar information. Both methods would be infinitely more convenient than constantly referring to documentation.
The directory structure in Linux is one of the biggest shocks to experienced Windows users who are accustomed to navigating the files and folders of Windows, and its complexity is a major area that needs to addressed if Linux is to make gains in the desktop arena.
Flight control wouldn't be too affected, even if it's an aircraft using a fly-by-wire control system as they're equipped with hydraulic backups (non-military).
Engine control might be lost. Not something like an engine failure of any type, just loss of control.
Landing gear control might be lost, though gear could be brought down manually by a member of the flight crew going below deck.
I prefer widescreen, though there are some serious videophiles who prefer pan and scan. They believe that the full screen picture is more engaging than widescreen, which is worth the loss in picture. It isn't just home video viewers who sometimes like pan and scan.
2. No, a couple of feet will not. While some ABM's are designed to actually impact the ballistic missile, they are also equipped with proximity fuses, which in the case of a miss, would detonate the fragmentation warhead and destroy the ballistic missile.
The warhead would still heat up due to aerodynamic friction, sufficient enough for an imaging IR seeker. And of course, a radar would have no problem gaining a tracking solution.
Random movement would not be very conducive to accurate guidance of the weapon. It could still be attacked by a weapoing using lead pursuit, then by switching to pure pursuit in the terminal stage.
Nuking the airspace wouldn't do much to mess up radars, unless we're taking many many petatons worth of nukes.
Installing a cruise missile on a fishing boat is simply not technically feasible, depending on your definition of "fishing boat" (a fishing boat with the attributes of a destroyer perhaps?).
Yes, you could mail the bomb.
There are many different ways to attempt to dodge the ABM system. The thing is, most of them would either not work and are based off of uninformed speculation. Others (such as most terrorist actions) could be effective, but that's a different issue. ABM proponents feel that there are many ways to attack the U.S., with ballistic missiles being one of them that is clear and present. The ABM program is intended to stop that threat.
I also wouldn't trust the SDI. Neither did scientists, who believed its satellite laser weapons technology was too under developed at the time, with some believing the entire program might cost upwards of $5 trillion.
Which is why the program was canceled in the 1980s. We now have the ABM program, using more conventional technologies (anti-ballistic missile missiles, more effective radars) as well as more radical types (the Airborne Laser (which is far less ambitious than the laser weapony of the SDI), also rumors of a classified plasma-toroid firing weapon).
The ABM program is far more realistic than the SDI.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
Maybe distro developers could try creating better ways of teaching the Linux directory structure instead of changing it. For example, a sidepane that appears in folder windows, describing the purpose of the folder currently being viewed. Or perhaps Windows-esque "tooltips" appearing over color-coded system folders that provide similar information. Both methods would be infinitely more convenient than constantly referring to documentation.
The directory structure in Linux is one of the biggest shocks to experienced Windows users who are accustomed to navigating the files and folders of Windows, and its complexity is a major area that needs to addressed if Linux is to make gains in the desktop arena.
Hard to say exactly, but here are my guesses...
Comms and avionics would be damaged.
Flight control wouldn't be too affected, even if it's an aircraft using a fly-by-wire control system as they're equipped with hydraulic backups (non-military).
Engine control might be lost. Not something like an engine failure of any type, just loss of control.
Landing gear control might be lost, though gear could be brought down manually by a member of the flight crew going below deck.
I prefer widescreen, though there are some serious videophiles who prefer pan and scan. They believe that the full screen picture is more engaging than widescreen, which is worth the loss in picture. It isn't just home video viewers who sometimes like pan and scan.
2. No, a couple of feet will not. While some ABM's are designed to actually impact the ballistic missile, they are also equipped with proximity fuses, which in the case of a miss, would detonate the fragmentation warhead and destroy the ballistic missile.
4. Technology can't prevent human error.
The warhead would still heat up due to aerodynamic friction, sufficient enough for an imaging IR seeker. And of course, a radar would have no problem gaining a tracking solution.
Random movement would not be very conducive to accurate guidance of the weapon. It could still be attacked by a weapoing using lead pursuit, then by switching to pure pursuit in the terminal stage.
Nuking the airspace wouldn't do much to mess up radars, unless we're taking many many petatons worth of nukes.
Installing a cruise missile on a fishing boat is simply not technically feasible, depending on your definition of "fishing boat" (a fishing boat with the attributes of a destroyer perhaps?).
Yes, you could mail the bomb.
There are many different ways to attempt to dodge the ABM system. The thing is, most of them would either not work and are based off of uninformed speculation. Others (such as most terrorist actions) could be effective, but that's a different issue. ABM proponents feel that there are many ways to attack the U.S., with ballistic missiles being one of them that is clear and present. The ABM program is intended to stop that threat.
I also wouldn't trust the SDI. Neither did scientists, who believed its satellite laser weapons technology was too under developed at the time, with some believing the entire program might cost upwards of $5 trillion.
Which is why the program was canceled in the 1980s. We now have the ABM program, using more conventional technologies (anti-ballistic missile missiles, more effective radars) as well as more radical types (the Airborne Laser (which is far less ambitious than the laser weapony of the SDI), also rumors of a classified plasma-toroid firing weapon).
The ABM program is far more realistic than the SDI.
Something tells me that people are just going to be posting what their favorite games are, whether they were "affected" by them or not.
God damn it, didn't get first post. Oh well.
Half-Life. It just blew me away...
Indeed, sir.
Hurray for bad karma. New old account, excellent. All hail.
Hello.
I am just celebrating the re-acquisition of this account.