Too many people with different viewpoints saw the photographic and other evidence to confirm he was really killed. He survived for 10 years mostly because of elements of the Pakistani security organizations and what passes for their government protection. If they were not convinced the op was successful they probably wouldn't have gotten so upset that the US didn't give them a heads up before the operation and they would have provided contradicting evidence to disprove the death claim. I'm still amazed that Obama went forward with the operation because the government couldn't really prove Bin Ladens presence and the chances of success was only around 40%. It takes a lot of guts to violate a foreign countries territory and if Bin Laden wasn't there it would have given the Pakistanis a lot of ammunition to criticize the US. Instead they ended up showing embarrassment about the whole operation.
That's certainly my opinion. Population growth is a big factor when it comes to ecological and natural resource usage and dependency. If civilization survives long enough we will eventually develop viable technology that lowers and drastically eliminates the reliance on natural resources such as gas and oil but we are not there yet. A change of that magnitude will take a tremendous amount of time. It took the US and most of the world close to 90+ years just to develop the means to extract and distribute fossil fuel products. The extraction process alone- often causes more environmental problems than the usage side of the equation. Electric, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, or any other alternative will require a major shift in peoples lives and the supporting infrastructure .
On a side note the idea that major oil and gas company's are hindering alternative fuel research is a weak argument. Like most businesses they plan for the future so they can maintain their revenue stream when the change over starts. The major players certainly have the money to invest and support alternative power projects just to make sure they get on the ground floor and reap the maximum rewards.
No, The real cause of the entire problem is that there are too many fucking people on the planet. More people require more natural resources which will increasingly become so scarce that people will turn towards to war to make sure they get the resources they need. And with the weapons available today the entire planet and the majority of it's population can be demolished pretty quickly. The end result will be fewer people, and a reduction in the infrastructure dependent on natural resources. However, on the bright side, as long as a few people survive the war we can start the cycle all over again in a few hundred thousand years.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never claimed they didn't have US employees. They also received more than $150 million. The figure was closer to $350 million with a good part of it from Bill Gates as a private individual. Comparing XCode to VS is ridiculous. Even the most die hard MS hater admits that VS has been one of their better products and the free version works just fine. Most of the missing functionality in the free version is targeted at large scale applications. If you need the paid version than pay for it and get on with your work. And the US public is finally starting to return all the love and kindness most foreign countries display towards the US. Isolationist and nationalistic attitudes are gaining more support by the day. I really do not know whether that is a good or bad thing but the majority of the world will not like the results but they can hardly bitch and complain any louder than they already do. I am for a total amoral foreign policy. Let the Syrians kill each other to their hearts content. Let Israel deal with Iran using all their capabilities, and I mean all their capabilities. And get the hell out of Afghanistan and let those lunatics kill each other in peace. That entire country could disappear and nobody would ever notice and if they did they wouldn't really give a shit. No more foreign aid or debt forgiveness unless it benefits the US in a tangible way. That's the government's job. All foreign aid should be a matter for private citizen groups and not the government. If someone wants some military help they should expect an invoice and a 50% down payment upfront before the US lifts a finger. And I don't hate people from other countries, I just really don't give a damn about their situation. And before you make a stupid assumption I have visited 18 foreign countries for both personal and professional reasons so I do have some knowledge of life in other countries.
Please elaborate on the misinformation. And as far as hate goes something tells me that if this was a critique of MS you would have accused me of being too nice. The plain fact is that Apple has created one of the most restrictive and closed technology platforms today and the Apple fan boys have been cheering them on every step of the way. I don't personalize software companies so any "hate" is not directed at the company providing the technology. Instead I have found it easier to base my technology choices, both personal and professional, on whether the choice serves the particular need I have at the time. After 27 years of experience therre is hardly a single computer technology I have not either used or developed for so I have no patience for morons who rally around a particular technology just because it's cool or trendy at the moment.
Apple can't even be classified as a US company at all. Their Board of Directors and design teams might maintain offices in the US but that is about it. Their control fetish allows them to dictate higher prices for their products. They monopolize foreign manufacturing resources to slow down the competition. Their App Store submission procedures control who can and can't release apps. If you want to use Apple products you are forced to use their rules. No commodity based hardware, restricted app pipeline, and even mandated phone service providers leave users with very little options. They best make most of their money now because they are losing market share as Android based phones begin to stabilize, standardize, provide the same functionality, and offer the user a wide range of options. In the US thier foreign manufacturing is also starting to come under attack. The US consumer is finally ready to pay a little more if the manufacturing products everything is done in the US and really not give a shot about any other countries concerns. The general US population is also not aware that besides the GDP the US is also still the world leader in manufacturing. Back in the day the Apple business model and competition with MS in the OS arena ended up with them getting their assess kicked so bad they had to accept a large investment from the MS to just survive as a company. Their developer support and options also suck when compared to others. Making it easier to develop applications ensures the platform adoption rate grows. Their greatest strength is not their technology but their marketing and eventually people will realize that and start asking questions.
China doesn't invent technology they just "appropriate" it from others to cut down on the R&D expenses. It's not a bad approach if you can get away with it. And they are certainly not communists, the ruling party runs the country as as a corporation. A corporation that doesn't have to worry about silly monopolist practices or workers rights.
I never said you cannot make money on open source software but this applies only to people or companies whose business model is centered around providing support and bug fixes. Redhat adopted a business model based on charging for support but that option is not universal. The original post on this thread intimated that all source code should be automatically open sourced from the first release.
There are some software applications that require a high degree of coordination and management to produce. Some types of software also require the cooperation of 3rd parties to ensure the system you are building will handle certain functionalities. You may even need to create a test bed to reproduce the security related issue. These types of things cost money. Why should anyone be expected to automatically open source their code before they have a chance to at least recoup the expenses incurred in the development process? And the "many eyes" security approach is laughable and naive in the extreme. How many developers actually posses the skills needed to analyze a complex application code base and spot security problems just by stepping through the code? I have seen a lot of bug fixes and new functionality in open sourced projects but I have not seen any conclusive examples of someone addressing a security related issue. I am sure there might actually be some instances of this happening but placing your faith on the "many eyes" approach is just bad advertising.
The US public is starting to not really give a shit what other countries are doing. They want every penny handed out in Foreign aid to be used domestically. It won't solve many problems in the US because the dollar amounts are a relatively small percentage of the government budget but even small amounts are better than none. The US government should not be isolationist, instead it should establish and pursue a strict amoral policy methodology when interacting with foreign countries. Any political, military, or commerce related deals should be made only if the US stands to gain something tangible. One example would be the aid given to Isreal. Isreal is required to use 90% of their aid money buying US goods and which benefits the US economy . The US gets most of the money back while still maintaining an allie in the region. In contrast the aid given to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Egypt produce a low or negative return on investment and is a total waste. The "spreading democracy" bullshit has been tried and failed. Any country who can't fix their own problems should not expect any help from the US other than some stern statements. This mirrors the UN approach to problem solving. If countries want treaties with the US for military support they should be billed with at least a 50% due upfront for any services rendered. The government should also let the business community negotiate their foreign arrangements using their own money as long as they do not violate any US laws concerning foreign commerce. If the average US citizen have problems with the situations, such as human rights, in foreign countries they should be allowed total freedom to do anything they want to help but they should do it on their own dime.
They basically got a glorified flying camera. It's not like they got an intact Predator or Reaper. If it contained any super secret technology the US could have destroyed it by an airstrike or specs op mission pretty easily. And while every government in the world release the total truth about some things Iran and the majority of middle eastern countries constantly lie about their capabilities or anything else for that matter.
All the major nuclear states have proven they are responsible in the handling of nuclear weapons. They also have high levels of security to prevent these weapons from being compromised and provided to 3rd parties. The current Iranian issue is not really about them actually using a nuke if they had one. This is about them being able to provide the weapons to one of the 3rd party organizations they support. That's their standard method of projecting military power while being able to maintain plausible deniability. If a terrorist was able to get a nuke and use it Iran is counting on not being definitively identified as the supplier thus avoiding any immediate retaliatory strike. However, the source of the weapon would eventually be identified but it might take a few months in which time the initial outrage would have dissipated. Would the world approve of a retaliatory attack 6 months after the weapon has been used?
I have been a consultant for 25+ years and have worked for 4 different large companies just in 2011 and 2012 and each of these companies are working towards eliminating their reliance on off-shore and even domestic contractor resources because a perfectly good application usually gets destroyed when the development team changes every 3 to 6 months. With the programmer turnover the work tends to migrate into the "just make it work!" pattern.
A large percentage of mid-size to large corporations have been using Office for so long that changing over to something else is unthinkable. There are just too many potential issues raised during the decision process. Anyone suggesting the change would need to be able to persuade those who are against it. They would need to convince people that their existing documents will still render correctly and that is a tall order. They would also need to convince the decision makers that document sharing with other organizations will still work correctly. From a personal standpoint you can use what ever you like but when you work for someone who has standardized on Office you will usually stick with it at home because that's what you are familiar with.
The Soviets were good reliable opponents. Both they and the US had limitations on their aggressiveness towards each country other because they both had 1000's of nukes aimed at one another. Blowing up airplanes and office buildings would have led to WW3 which would have lasted about an hour from start to finish. Today's terrorist organizations are unpredictable and under no such constraints and take the chance to kill as many people as possible with each attack.
Too bad when the US collapses it will take China and whole lot of other countries down with it. The more dialog between the US and China is a good thing. China is more dependant on the US then the US is on China. They produce nothing that cannot be acquired elsewhere or produced domestically. And contrary to most people's beliefs the US still commands the highest GDP and is still the #1 manufacturer in the world. China's appeal was it's cheaper exports but with other countries in the region finally getting their shit together they are becoming able to match or better China's export costs. They have also reached the limit on currency manipulations which is causing the inflation and causing some countries to debate increased tariffs on imports. China also stashes a shit load of money in US securities and bonds because of the basic US stability. They consider the US a good investment. China has also started running deficits instead of surpluses. The have increased the amount of food imports from the US by a factor of 5 over the past 6 years. The current Chinese government is walking a fine line right now.
For a country that is supposed to be a communist or socialist government there are a lot of people that are becoming very wealthy and it's starting to become noticeable to their citizens.
Even thier previous nuke tests had problems. The first one failed completely and the second one did not produce the expected results common to a nuclear detonation. They could have used tons of dynamite mixed with radioactive elements to give the impression that they actually detonated a nuke.
And even if they do have a nuclear weapon they certainly don't have a delivery system unless they want to carry it or use a bomber which would just end up being great target practice for all the various air defense systems in the region. Attaching a nuclear warhead on a missile is almost as difficult as producing the warhead in the first place. The miniaturization of components, guidance systems, and denotation systems would be very difficult for a country like N. Korea to produce. They could probably produce a bomb the size of the first 2 US nuclear weapons. The world would be better off if everyone just totally ignored NK.
Has the vaunted MiG-31 ever did anything to prove your claims? The F-15E has the same range and has used it in actual combat. The F-22 would destroy a MiG-31 easily, and from a great distance. The MiG pilot wouldn't even see the F-22 or suspect it was launching missiles until right before he gets destroyed. The plain and simple fact is long range anti-aircraft missiles are becoming useless because both the plane and launch can be detected. The F-22 has effectively removed the ability to detect it. Air combat is also going to be rare if both jets can detect one another about the same time. The ground or ship mounted anti-air missiles are capable of mach 5 which will take out any air asset when targeted. The only real defense is stealth. If you are detected and targeted you are dead. What I would like to know is if anyone has been able to detect a stealth aircraft. I have seen no information stating this has been successfully done. The F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia happened because the pilot was flying at too low of altitude and it was visually detected from the ground. After all stealth doesn't mean it's invisible.
It was both the US and Russia who secured the earliest stealth and missile technology from Germany after WW2. Germany had designed, but not built, an airframe that closely resembles the F-117 design. Of course they didn't have the computer technology and radar absorbing materials at the time. Claiming a Mig-31 can drop a small fleet of F-15's is total BS and there is no evidence they are even capable of destroying 1 F-15 in a head on confrontation. If you have proof of your claim please provide it. The Russians also lack the most important advantage when it comes to jet warfare which is actual operational experience.
Your still underestimating the capabilities of the F-22. Development started over 20 years ago for this plane. Where you involved in the project at anytime? I was lucky to be involved in a very small piece of the software development used in the simulators. Mapping air and land threats without needing to rely on an AWACS assets gives the F-22 a faster response time. Relying on an AWACS or other non-stealth aircraft undermines the stealth advantages. The F-22's primary advantage is it's stealth and using other non-stealth planes tends to make people start looking for a threat. Ideally the enemy should not be aware of any air activity until after the targets start exploding. Name one other fighter in the world that can engage and "destroy" up to 5 top of the line F-15's at the same time. And you need to provide some proof about your claim of the F-22 using a 30 year old Russian technology. The performance of the top of the line Russian fighters has always been overestimated along with much of their other technologies. It has always been in the US best interest to exaggerate Russian capabilities to make sure funding keeps flowing to military projects.
You are mistaken. The F-22 was designed to track multiple air and ground targets and the standard armaments they carry include missiles (JDAMS) to engage a ground target. The biggest thing separating the F-22 from the F-35 is it's threat assessment capabilities across the entire battle space. The F-22 is also able to create an integrated network with other F-22's in the area to expand the cover a large amount of both land and air space. Plus the F-22 doesn't hard rely on hard points for carrying armaments they are stored internally.
The problem comes in when a country has a small number of nukes. If someone was to smuggle a nuke into the US or Europe they could destroy a big city but both he US and Europe would still be able to counter attack. The US and USSR went a little overboard on the number of nukes created and both sides have the capability to destroy not just a city or 2 but an entire country if necessary. That is a true MAD doctrine that has prevented the US and USSR from attacking one another. The problem with Pakistan, NK, and Iran is that they could sale one of thier weapons to a non-state actor to use while hoping the source of the weapon could not be traced back to them. It would take time to determine the source of nuke but would the public be willing to retaliate 6 months later with a nuclear reprisal? It's this type of scenario that can invalidate the MAD doctrine the major nuclear armed countries have used for over 60+ years.
There are only a few data centers capable of fighting off a DDOS and your right this type of attack is almost impossible to withstand for most companies. However, the posers acting as "hacktivist" have taking advantage of systems which were not current on the security patches. Too many mid to large companies have too much red tape to get these updates in place. These types of decisions are usually left in the hands of some management knot head following the "correct procedure". After all if they follow the correct procedures and someone compromises their systems they can save their jobs. Sloppy coding practices also create exploitable holes just by not validating both client and server side data streams. I don't care how secure a browser is it doesn't matter when the developer does something stupid. SQL injection attacks are also a big target but can be prevented by correct data access and current staying current on the security updates. One thing I have not seen is people entertaining the possibility that some of the more public attacks rely on insider information provided by a disgruntled employee.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many people with different viewpoints saw the photographic and other evidence to confirm he was really killed. He survived for 10 years mostly because of elements of the Pakistani security organizations and what passes for their government protection. If they were not convinced the op was successful they probably wouldn't have gotten so upset that the US didn't give them a heads up before the operation and they would have provided contradicting evidence to disprove the death claim. I'm still amazed that Obama went forward with the operation because the government couldn't really prove Bin Ladens presence and the chances of success was only around 40%. It takes a lot of guts to violate a foreign countries territory and if Bin Laden wasn't there it would have given the Pakistanis a lot of ammunition to criticize the US. Instead they ended up showing embarrassment about the whole operation.
That's certainly my opinion. Population growth is a big factor when it comes to ecological and natural resource usage and dependency. If civilization survives long enough we will eventually develop viable technology that lowers and drastically eliminates the reliance on natural resources such as gas and oil but we are not there yet. A change of that magnitude will take a tremendous amount of time. It took the US and most of the world close to 90+ years just to develop the means to extract and distribute fossil fuel products. The extraction process alone- often causes more environmental problems than the usage side of the equation. Electric, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, or any other alternative will require a major shift in peoples lives and the supporting infrastructure .
On a side note the idea that major oil and gas company's are hindering alternative fuel research is a weak argument. Like most businesses they plan for the future so they can maintain their revenue stream when the change over starts. The major players certainly have the money to invest and support alternative power projects just to make sure they get on the ground floor and reap the maximum rewards.
No, The real cause of the entire problem is that there are too many fucking people on the planet. More people require more natural resources which will increasingly become so scarce that people will turn towards to war to make sure they get the resources they need. And with the weapons available today the entire planet and the majority of it's population can be demolished pretty quickly. The end result will be fewer people, and a reduction in the infrastructure dependent on natural resources. However, on the bright side, as long as a few people survive the war we can start the cycle all over again in a few hundred thousand years.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never claimed they didn't have US employees. They also received more than $150 million. The figure was closer to $350 million with a good part of it from Bill Gates as a private individual. Comparing XCode to VS is ridiculous. Even the most die hard MS hater admits that VS has been one of their better products and the free version works just fine. Most of the missing functionality in the free version is targeted at large scale applications. If you need the paid version than pay for it and get on with your work. And the US public is finally starting to return all the love and kindness most foreign countries display towards the US. Isolationist and nationalistic attitudes are gaining more support by the day. I really do not know whether that is a good or bad thing but the majority of the world will not like the results but they can hardly bitch and complain any louder than they already do. I am for a total amoral foreign policy. Let the Syrians kill each other to their hearts content. Let Israel deal with Iran using all their capabilities, and I mean all their capabilities. And get the hell out of Afghanistan and let those lunatics kill each other in peace. That entire country could disappear and nobody would ever notice and if they did they wouldn't really give a shit. No more foreign aid or debt forgiveness unless it benefits the US in a tangible way. That's the government's job. All foreign aid should be a matter for private citizen groups and not the government. If someone wants some military help they should expect an invoice and a 50% down payment upfront before the US lifts a finger. And I don't hate people from other countries, I just really don't give a damn about their situation. And before you make a stupid assumption I have visited 18 foreign countries for both personal and professional reasons so I do have some knowledge of life in other countries.
Please elaborate on the misinformation. And as far as hate goes something tells me that if this was a critique of MS you would have accused me of being too nice. The plain fact is that Apple has created one of the most restrictive and closed technology platforms today and the Apple fan boys have been cheering them on every step of the way. I don't personalize software companies so any "hate" is not directed at the company providing the technology. Instead I have found it easier to base my technology choices, both personal and professional, on whether the choice serves the particular need I have at the time. After 27 years of experience therre is hardly a single computer technology I have not either used or developed for so I have no patience for morons who rally around a particular technology just because it's cool or trendy at the moment.
He uses the term "odd traffic" because he is too stupid to analyze and actually understand the traffic contents or purpose.
Apple can't even be classified as a US company at all. Their Board of Directors and design teams might maintain offices in the US but that is about it. Their control fetish allows them to dictate higher prices for their products. They monopolize foreign manufacturing resources to slow down the competition. Their App Store submission procedures control who can and can't release apps. If you want to use Apple products you are forced to use their rules. No commodity based hardware, restricted app pipeline, and even mandated phone service providers leave users with very little options. They best make most of their money now because they are losing market share as Android based phones begin to stabilize, standardize, provide the same functionality, and offer the user a wide range of options. In the US thier foreign manufacturing is also starting to come under attack. The US consumer is finally ready to pay a little more if the manufacturing products everything is done in the US and really not give a shot about any other countries concerns. The general US population is also not aware that besides the GDP the US is also still the world leader in manufacturing. Back in the day the Apple business model and competition with MS in the OS arena ended up with them getting their assess kicked so bad they had to accept a large investment from the MS to just survive as a company. Their developer support and options also suck when compared to others. Making it easier to develop applications ensures the platform adoption rate grows. Their greatest strength is not their technology but their marketing and eventually people will realize that and start asking questions.
China doesn't invent technology they just "appropriate" it from others to cut down on the R&D expenses. It's not a bad approach if you can get away with it. And they are certainly not communists, the ruling party runs the country as as a corporation. A corporation that doesn't have to worry about silly monopolist practices or workers rights.
I never said you cannot make money on open source software but this applies only to people or companies whose business model is centered around providing support and bug fixes. Redhat adopted a business model based on charging for support but that option is not universal. The original post on this thread intimated that all source code should be automatically open sourced from the first release.
There are some software applications that require a high degree of coordination and management to produce. Some types of software also require the cooperation of 3rd parties to ensure the system you are building will handle certain functionalities. You may even need to create a test bed to reproduce the security related issue. These types of things cost money. Why should anyone be expected to automatically open source their code before they have a chance to at least recoup the expenses incurred in the development process? And the "many eyes" security approach is laughable and naive in the extreme. How many developers actually posses the skills needed to analyze a complex application code base and spot security problems just by stepping through the code? I have seen a lot of bug fixes and new functionality in open sourced projects but I have not seen any conclusive examples of someone addressing a security related issue. I am sure there might actually be some instances of this happening but placing your faith on the "many eyes" approach is just bad advertising.
The US public is starting to not really give a shit what other countries are doing. They want every penny handed out in Foreign aid to be used domestically. It won't solve many problems in the US because the dollar amounts are a relatively small percentage of the government budget but even small amounts are better than none. The US government should not be isolationist, instead it should establish and pursue a strict amoral policy methodology when interacting with foreign countries. Any political, military, or commerce related deals should be made only if the US stands to gain something tangible. One example would be the aid given to Isreal. Isreal is required to use 90% of their aid money buying US goods and which benefits the US economy . The US gets most of the money back while still maintaining an allie in the region. In contrast the aid given to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Egypt produce a low or negative return on investment and is a total waste. The "spreading democracy" bullshit has been tried and failed. Any country who can't fix their own problems should not expect any help from the US other than some stern statements. This mirrors the UN approach to problem solving. If countries want treaties with the US for military support they should be billed with at least a 50% due upfront for any services rendered. The government should also let the business community negotiate their foreign arrangements using their own money as long as they do not violate any US laws concerning foreign commerce. If the average US citizen have problems with the situations, such as human rights, in foreign countries they should be allowed total freedom to do anything they want to help but they should do it on their own dime.
They basically got a glorified flying camera. It's not like they got an intact Predator or Reaper. If it contained any super secret technology the US could have destroyed it by an airstrike or specs op mission pretty easily. And while every government in the world release the total truth about some things Iran and the majority of middle eastern countries constantly lie about their capabilities or anything else for that matter.
All the major nuclear states have proven they are responsible in the handling of nuclear weapons. They also have high levels of security to prevent these weapons from being compromised and provided to 3rd parties. The current Iranian issue is not really about them actually using a nuke if they had one. This is about them being able to provide the weapons to one of the 3rd party organizations they support. That's their standard method of projecting military power while being able to maintain plausible deniability. If a terrorist was able to get a nuke and use it Iran is counting on not being definitively identified as the supplier thus avoiding any immediate retaliatory strike. However, the source of the weapon would eventually be identified but it might take a few months in which time the initial outrage would have dissipated. Would the world approve of a retaliatory attack 6 months after the weapon has been used?
I have been a consultant for 25+ years and have worked for 4 different large companies just in 2011 and 2012 and each of these companies are working towards eliminating their reliance on off-shore and even domestic contractor resources because a perfectly good application usually gets destroyed when the development team changes every 3 to 6 months. With the programmer turnover the work tends to migrate into the "just make it work!" pattern.
A large percentage of mid-size to large corporations have been using Office for so long that changing over to something else is unthinkable. There are just too many potential issues raised during the decision process. Anyone suggesting the change would need to be able to persuade those who are against it. They would need to convince people that their existing documents will still render correctly and that is a tall order. They would also need to convince the decision makers that document sharing with other organizations will still work correctly. From a personal standpoint you can use what ever you like but when you work for someone who has standardized on Office you will usually stick with it at home because that's what you are familiar with.
The Soviets were good reliable opponents. Both they and the US had limitations on their aggressiveness towards each country other because they both had 1000's of nukes aimed at one another. Blowing up airplanes and office buildings would have led to WW3 which would have lasted about an hour from start to finish. Today's terrorist organizations are unpredictable and under no such constraints and take the chance to kill as many people as possible with each attack.
Too bad when the US collapses it will take China and whole lot of other countries down with it. The more dialog between the US and China is a good thing. China is more dependant on the US then the US is on China. They produce nothing that cannot be acquired elsewhere or produced domestically. And contrary to most people's beliefs the US still commands the highest GDP and is still the #1 manufacturer in the world. China's appeal was it's cheaper exports but with other countries in the region finally getting their shit together they are becoming able to match or better China's export costs. They have also reached the limit on currency manipulations which is causing the inflation and causing some countries to debate increased tariffs on imports. China also stashes a shit load of money in US securities and bonds because of the basic US stability. They consider the US a good investment.
China has also started running deficits instead of surpluses. The have increased the amount of food imports from the US by a factor of 5 over the past 6 years. The current Chinese government is walking a fine line right now.
For a country that is supposed to be a communist or socialist government there are a lot of people that are becoming very wealthy and it's starting to become noticeable to their citizens.
Even thier previous nuke tests had problems. The first one failed completely and the second one did not produce the expected results common to a nuclear detonation. They could have used tons of dynamite mixed with radioactive elements to give the impression that they actually detonated a nuke.
And even if they do have a nuclear weapon they certainly don't have a delivery system unless they want to carry it or use a bomber which would just end up being great target practice for all the various air defense systems in the region. Attaching a nuclear warhead on a missile is almost as difficult as producing the warhead in the first place. The miniaturization of components, guidance systems, and denotation systems would be very difficult for a country like N. Korea to produce. They could probably produce a bomb the size of the first 2 US nuclear weapons. The world would be better off if everyone just totally ignored NK.
Has the vaunted MiG-31 ever did anything to prove your claims? The F-15E has the same range and has used it in actual combat. The F-22 would destroy a MiG-31 easily, and from a great distance. The MiG pilot wouldn't even see the F-22 or suspect it was launching missiles until right before he gets destroyed. The plain and simple fact is long range anti-aircraft missiles are becoming useless because both the plane and launch can be detected. The F-22 has effectively removed the ability to detect it. Air combat is also going to be rare if both jets can detect one another about the same time. The ground or ship mounted anti-air missiles are capable of mach 5 which will take out any air asset when targeted. The only real defense is stealth. If you are detected and targeted you are dead. What I would like to know is if anyone has been able to detect a stealth aircraft. I have seen no information stating this has been successfully done. The F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia happened because the pilot was flying at too low of altitude and it was visually detected from the ground. After all stealth doesn't mean it's invisible.
It was both the US and Russia who secured the earliest stealth and missile technology from Germany after WW2. Germany had designed, but not built, an airframe that closely resembles the F-117 design. Of course they didn't have the computer technology and radar absorbing materials at the time. Claiming a Mig-31 can drop a small fleet of F-15's is total BS and there is no evidence they are even capable of destroying 1 F-15 in a head on confrontation. If you have proof of your claim please provide it. The Russians also lack the most important advantage when it comes to jet warfare which is actual operational experience.
Your still underestimating the capabilities of the F-22. Development started over 20 years ago for this plane. Where you involved in the project at anytime? I was lucky to be involved in a very small piece of the software development used in the simulators. Mapping air and land threats without needing to rely on an AWACS assets gives the F-22 a faster response time. Relying on an AWACS or other non-stealth aircraft undermines the stealth advantages. The F-22's primary advantage is it's stealth and using other non-stealth planes tends to make people start looking for a threat. Ideally the enemy should not be aware of any air activity until after the targets start exploding. Name one other fighter in the world that can engage and "destroy" up to 5 top of the line F-15's at the same time. And you need to provide some proof about your claim of the F-22 using a 30 year old Russian technology. The performance of the top of the line Russian fighters has always been overestimated along with much of their other technologies. It has always been in the US best interest to exaggerate Russian capabilities to make sure funding keeps flowing to military projects.
You are mistaken. The F-22 was designed to track multiple air and ground targets and the standard armaments they carry include missiles (JDAMS) to engage a ground target. The biggest thing separating the F-22 from the F-35 is it's threat assessment capabilities across the entire battle space. The F-22 is also able to create an integrated network with other F-22's in the area to expand the cover a large amount of both land and air space. Plus the F-22 doesn't hard rely on hard points for carrying armaments they are stored internally.
The problem comes in when a country has a small number of nukes. If someone was to smuggle a nuke into the US or Europe they could destroy a big city but both he US and Europe would still be able to counter attack. The US and USSR went a little overboard on the number of nukes created and both sides have the capability to destroy not just a city or 2 but an entire country if necessary. That is a true MAD doctrine that has prevented the US and USSR from attacking one another. The problem with Pakistan, NK, and Iran is that they could sale one of thier weapons to a non-state actor to use while hoping the source of the weapon could not be traced back to them. It would take time to determine the source of nuke but would the public be willing to retaliate 6 months later with a nuclear reprisal? It's this type of scenario that can invalidate the MAD doctrine the major nuclear armed countries have used for over 60+ years.
There are only a few data centers capable of fighting off a DDOS and your right this type of attack is almost impossible to withstand for most companies. However, the posers acting as "hacktivist" have taking advantage of systems which were not current on the security patches. Too many mid to large companies have too much red tape to get these updates in place. These types of decisions are usually left in the hands of some management knot head following the "correct procedure". After all if they follow the correct procedures and someone compromises their systems they can save their jobs. Sloppy coding practices also create exploitable holes just by not validating both client and server side data streams. I don't care how secure a browser is it doesn't matter when the developer does something stupid. SQL injection attacks are also a big target but can be prevented by correct data access and current staying current on the security updates. One thing I have not seen is people entertaining the possibility that some of the more public attacks rely on insider information provided by a disgruntled employee.
It is Apple that enforces the unlocking prohibitions not the carrier.