I had to deal with someone similar. Very talented in finance, could make a fortune if he stayed honest and just used his skills. However, there seems to be some attraction in doing things outside the book, in conning people and committing fraud that appears to be irresistible. I must add that this guy operated in the UK where laws and enforcement appear to be almost DESIGNED for con artists like this guy to work (as an example, you can set up a new company and get VAT paid to you for purchases. If you then close the company the associated assets disappear from tax view - AFAIK he did this multiple times too).
Add to that a legal system that will accept any old sob story in preference to facts and presto, criminal paradise. It's no wonder that people like him and Ralsky think they can get away with it, and mostly they do. It's indeed pure greed and an unwillingness to accept that they could possibly be wrong that gets them caught.
The problem is that DOS was never designed for multitasking, not to mention the rather crap memory management. That's why you needed interrupt driven software (some of which is still with us) and anything that was "multi" tasking needed TSR (Terminate & Stay Resident) code to work, making networking a *bastard* to get stable.
The closest DOS came to multitasking was with Desqview and DoubleDOS, both suffering from the "640k is enough for anyone" limits.
Your PC is doing a lot of stuff at the "same" time, networking, listening to I/O, placing screen output into video buffers and, in the case of Windows Vista, probably farming your personal data to give it to Microsoft & friends.
I came from the DOS world when I started using Unix (first SUNOS, then Linux and BSD) and -although a bit difficult at first- it was *miles* better than DOS from the command line, not just because multi-tasking actually worked (in Worries for Workgroups you had this fun event when Windows decided to flush its cache, freezing the system for a minute or so) but also because it was *truly* segregated multi-user. DOS and Windows based servers were not really multi-user from a 'concurrent user environment' point of view until well into Windows 2000 - before then it was merely file serving to multiple access control lists. Where I would agree is that conceptually, the absolute dependence on a functional GUI before the system can be managed is something that Windows should lose pretty pronto. It's always been one of the great features of Unix that a GUI is actually optional.
Oh, and I didn't have to hand code little glue programs to make the batch language actually useful (the "ask" command, for example, came very late into MSDOS).
I can't really see why anyone would bother bringing DOS back for CLI work - AFAIK you've got things like Powershell (aka Monad) and, if you want to go the whole hog, you can install Cygwin which gets you more familiar with the Unix way of doing things (gives you some exercise in interoperability as well:-).
In summary, I agree with the idea of a better CLI (to me, it's always proved faster than a GUI), but I think asking for a DOS-alike implementation is somewhat ill advised. If you're leaning towards a better command line I would urge you to grab a Linux live CD or Cygwin and learn about "bash". Or use Powershell/Monad, with the caveat that that is very new and thus not as tested.
I don't think it takes much in the way of electronics to scan for the presence of say 5 or more passports of nation XX in the vicinity and only then trigger a bomb. With enough power supply such a device could lay dormant for quite a few years.
My passport got the microwave treatment. Given that the cover did not contain shielding and I work with microwave equipment, "mistakes" are easily made..
I guess this project got the OK by the same process as the UK ID card scheme: let the contractor who stands to gain the work also perform the feasibility study. Prevents any nasty surprises on the conclusion front:-).
I was expecting a sharp upturn in articles like this, not because the John Dvorak style trolling and baiting out desperation for hits but because there is so much positive going on in the Open Source world. The proprietary shops are working overtime to outspin the obvious benefits, and there will be much money spent on 'targeted advertising' (aka known as 'bought editorials'). The SCO case has already shown how easy it is to deceive, or buy. In other words - I expect much press noise because it's the last effective resort of failure.
Linux is making mincemeat in the server market, and even the desktop is now viable with projects like OpenOffice taking barriers away even in the Windows world (don't underestimate the bridge value of alternatives on the 'traditional' platform). Microsoft has screwed up royally with Vista, and the shenanigans to push their proprietary format as ISO compliant have so visibly damaged the ISO organisation that that will be visible long after the marketing guys have plastered it over with spin. Zune has tanked, Xbox has added to the arsenal of total failures known to Microsoft product users and in general the exposure to anti-monopoly legislation is also driving up 'operating' costs.
OLPC is proving that vision, initiative, creativity and ethics can make heavy inroads into the corporate domain of Microsoft and Intel, their agressiveness (and lack of ethics) clearly demonstrates that they are challenged. Moreovere, that's just on a like-for-like basis and ignores the HUGE added value the innovation in OLPC has brought to the computing world. If you want TRUE innovation you need plenty of ideas and an open mind.
.. assuming you have exhausted the local talent pool and want someone from outside, say, the valley, how are they going to find out you're "cool" to work for.
I agree 100% with you that this "cool to work for" is mainly BS (I worked for a consultancy which annually announced this "best company to work for" survey and then told us how to fill it in), but it makes me wonder if you have a volume need for new staff how you're making a good work place clear to them.
I'm no expert, but AFAIK the problem with CDs is that the data layer is actually on the outside, and is thus subject to anything you can think of: friction, corrosion, different expansion rates potentially promoting separation (that's why you have to be very careful what you use as marker - you're writing directly onto the data layer.
With DVDs the data layer is a bit safer, but there you have the problem that it has to be properly sealed (and that's assuming the sealant itself is not in any way affecting the data layer).
As for the figures, well, I suggest you treat them like statistics. Very decorative, but always in need of full validation..
I was at Media Markt yesterday (and another one of their chain the day before, coincidentally) and they have PLENTY of Wiis on the shelves, ditto at another store I was. I heard from some friends in the UK they had problems getting Nintendo DS Lite so they had to eBay one - again, never seen a shortage where I live.
I can't explain why there is a shortage in the US and UK, other than that they have obviously shipped too many our way:-).
It's possible - using a very thick concrete wall..
on
Specs For the New KITT
·
· Score: 1
Nothing in the specs states anything about driver protection, so I guess it'll simply involve an endless string of cloned Knightriders:-)
I was hoping anyone with better physics knowledge than I would be able to calculate the impact energy. To take almost 2 tonnes of steel down from 300 mph to 0 in about 12 feet (apparently calculated as a deceleration of about 250g) means you have to get rid of a godawful amount of kinetic energy in a very short time. Hell, that's not even going to look good on FILM.. Well, OK, once:-).
IANAL, but first off, your code is YOURS. You have the right to say who/where/what happens, so if YOU choose to release the under a license that compels the user to buy a pizza every other day and someone uses it on that condition (and fulfils it) you're fine.
Your problem comes when someone doesn't follow the rules, and I think you may be a bit too worried because you apear to be in a niche market.
Your motives are to 'spread your knowledge' (it's darn good advertising as well), but to stop someone from repackaging it as theirs and charge for it. The questions are:
- how likely is it that someone actually CAN without you noticing it? A friend of mine is ne of the maybe 15 people in the world who can supply market data REALLY fast (he tweaks to gain nanosecond improvements these days) - there is nobody that can appear afresh on teh scene without these guys noticing. Isn't your market similar (i.e. you'd stop it the moment this 'ripper' would try to sell)?
- how likely is it that someone would actually bother? If yours is for free, and theirs is at a charge it strikes me as sensible that you'd go to the source, and you can prove that. In addition, you have enforcement rights as code owner.
IMHO, package up a framework that is easy enough to use but only offer a simple app as demo to go with it. Or, even better, go the the product manufacturer for distribution - if it comes from them nobody is going to try getting creative.
Unless, of course, it's that main manufacturer you're worried about. In that case go to them with a formal license proposal, you make it publicly available but they can spread it as part of the packege if source formally acknowledged. Dual licensing is your right too, ask the MySQL people..
As stated before, IANAL, and you are to consider my rant of having no more intellectual value that the average George Bush speach. Umm, no. Above that. Let's not put the bar too low..
What MS actually means to say is "backward" compatibility (i.e. being compatible with earlier mishaps called 'IE' which introduced the very non-standards compliant ways of doing things). It's just that AutoFill keeps adding the "s"..
I think it's fantastic. First you break the standards because you like to screw up web standards and force a proprietary world on the Net, and then when that doesn't work you trumpet to all that you are now "fully compliant" as if you weren't the company that made this mess in the first place. Impressive.
I tend to stick my printers on a USB print server, all systems using it as TCP and one using it as remote USB to manage it occasionally (presently using a Hp Officejet Pro K550).
I liked the Canon 4500 (I think it's called Pixma or something) because it can also print CDs, but when I checked Linux compatibility it was poor. So I decided not to buy it.
HP support for Linux is very good, and until Canon gets a clue in the direction I'm afraid HP wins the deal - I use mostly Linux, a bit of Windows and I plan to buy a Macbook next year as well. There is no way I'll buy a printer that isn't properly supported under Linux..
The problem with equations like that is that they make dangerous assumptions about the quality of the cipher in the first place. All you need is one flaw in the algorithm and you're history in a much shorter time - and it's not like that hasn't happened yet.
You're also limiting your attack vector to pure linear brute force. The article itself already alluded to using language analysis to create a prioritised subset for analysis.
I must say that the use of 8 asterisks (********) has never failed to amuse me. Sure, it's the first thing a brute force attack would try, but it does appeal to my sense of humour.
I think you've just created another purpose for a botnet..
It makes for a fine organised crime recipe:
(1) targeted theft (2) decryption of interesting data with distributed botnet cracking (3) sale or blackmail? (4) Profit!
Replace (1) with 'politically motivated arrest'/'espionage'/'anti terror' and (2) with "expensive NSA room heaters" and you have in principle the same mechanism, but "legal"..
BTW, can't see why it would take long to boot up unless you kick the various components sequentially to prevent a power surge. The control node simply keeps updating its distribution list as more and more components come online.
Not only will many people point out that Compiz & Beryl have been around since 2005, there's also the fact that the two eye candy methods are *MUCH* more efficient in processing power - and they do much more.
Vista is like having put a larger engine in a Ferrari because you filled it with a foot of concrete - better coding and actually USING the graphics card for what it can do would have resulted in less of a resource hog. But then Intel would go and support Linux, of course, so inefficiency is a critical part of any new MS product.
Only, this time MS screwed up royally, and Vista is getting close to be considered another Windows ME (not exactly helped by adding DRM to it). It's been the best ad for Linux and OSX ever..
I was partly kidding, apart from one thing: collateral damage is not just defined by an ability to track and lock onto a target. It's also about identifying the correct target in the first place which does not depend on technology.
The human part needs taking care of as well, which is why I made the further joke about laser pointers. It depends on the method of target acquisition if this becomes an effective weapon or just a faster way for blue on blue.
Someone stated that because it's a laser it'll use a camera - I don't agree that the one follows from the other. A variety of target acquisition methods is probably best, it's sometimes easier to get a local to light up a target than it is to use imagery.
And I still wonder what atmospheric conditions will do to the energy delivery. Will a cloud layer just vaporise?
Look, it sadly appears I have to make it explicitly clear I've been royally taken the piss out of the whole thing. Or, to translate this, I was kidding. Geddit?
I just happen to be well aware of military capacity as I've been dealing with sensor to shooter in a NEC configuration (which is much more entertaining than single force work because it involves external sync and a bucket full of politics), and I know full well how target acquisition works for teh various effects (somewhere between "a bit of a b*tch" and "impossible" if said target is airborne, happens to move around at Mach 6 and your sensor is in another force, but I digress). But that doesn't stop me amusing myself, it's just funny so many people failed to spot that. I was hoping the 'Chinese Embassy' sign would give you a clue, but that was apparently still too subtle. Ah well, that's life.
Please find, as ordered, your latest shipment of laser pointers, to be handed out to all the kids in the area of your critical infrastructure. Regretfully we have no answer to some kids enjoying burning the retinas of their friends, your local soldiers are reputed to enjoy repleting the local child stock anyway.
The abundance of laser ID points will confuse the targeting system of the US weapon, forcing it into proximity to target properly, and you can then use regular air defence systems.
Please consider the further stack of large signs a gift for doing business with us. Should you find any troops of other nations, simply stick this sign "Chinese embassy" on their premises and the US will kindly take care of them for you under the internationally approved "collateral damage" excuse - all they want is to shoot, the type of target is less important.
Rest assured of our respect for your money^h^h^h^h^hbusiness, and I look forward to hear from you soon.
Easy. From now on, the target identification is a large sign "Chinese embassy".
Can't go wrong then. First, off it would no longer be an accident, secondly, it would stop anyone labelling a building "Chinese embassy" and thirdly we can assume a 100% hit rate based on past statistics.
The statement that there will be little or no collateral damage seems to originate from an unproven premise that they can aim the thing properly in the first place.
It flies. It flies slowly (it's not a fighter plane). It flies nearby (range is up to 20km, and let's hope the adversaries don't have any smoke grenades handy). Yet aim is 100% accurate?
"No collateral damage" - from the club with the two dog film (Barney and Blair)..
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may want to email Neelie Kroes (EU commission) on this (mainly because the DoJ seems to be bought by MS). Could get interesting ..
I had to deal with someone similar. Very talented in finance, could make a fortune if he stayed honest and just used his skills. However, there seems to be some attraction in doing things outside the book, in conning people and committing fraud that appears to be irresistible. I must add that this guy operated in the UK where laws and enforcement appear to be almost DESIGNED for con artists like this guy to work (as an example, you can set up a new company and get VAT paid to you for purchases. If you then close the company the associated assets disappear from tax view - AFAIK he did this multiple times too).
Add to that a legal system that will accept any old sob story in preference to facts and presto, criminal paradise. It's no wonder that people like him and Ralsky think they can get away with it, and mostly they do. It's indeed pure greed and an unwillingness to accept that they could possibly be wrong that gets them caught.
The problem is that DOS was never designed for multitasking, not to mention the rather crap memory management. That's why you needed interrupt driven software (some of which is still with us) and anything that was "multi" tasking needed TSR (Terminate & Stay Resident) code to work, making networking a *bastard* to get stable.
:-).
:-).
The closest DOS came to multitasking was with Desqview and DoubleDOS, both suffering from the "640k is enough for anyone" limits.
Your PC is doing a lot of stuff at the "same" time, networking, listening to I/O, placing screen output into video buffers and, in the case of Windows Vista, probably farming your personal data to give it to Microsoft & friends.
I came from the DOS world when I started using Unix (first SUNOS, then Linux and BSD) and -although a bit difficult at first- it was *miles* better than DOS from the command line, not just because multi-tasking actually worked (in Worries for Workgroups you had this fun event when Windows decided to flush its cache, freezing the system for a minute or so) but also because it was *truly* segregated multi-user. DOS and Windows based servers were not really multi-user from a 'concurrent user environment' point of view until well into Windows 2000 - before then it was merely file serving to multiple access control lists. Where I would agree is that conceptually, the absolute dependence on a functional GUI before the system can be managed is something that Windows should lose pretty pronto. It's always been one of the great features of Unix that a GUI is actually optional.
Oh, and I didn't have to hand code little glue programs to make the batch language actually useful (the "ask" command, for example, came very late into MSDOS).
I can't really see why anyone would bother bringing DOS back for CLI work - AFAIK you've got things like Powershell (aka Monad) and, if you want to go the whole hog, you can install Cygwin which gets you more familiar with the Unix way of doing things (gives you some exercise in interoperability as well
In summary, I agree with the idea of a better CLI (to me, it's always proved faster than a GUI), but I think asking for a DOS-alike implementation is somewhat ill advised. If you're leaning towards a better command line I would urge you to grab a Linux live CD or Cygwin and learn about "bash". Or use Powershell/Monad, with the caveat that that is very new and thus not as tested.
Just my two cents
I don't think it takes much in the way of electronics to scan for the presence of say 5 or more passports of nation XX in the vicinity and only then trigger a bomb. With enough power supply such a device could lay dormant for quite a few years.
:-).
My passport got the microwave treatment. Given that the cover did not contain shielding and I work with microwave equipment, "mistakes" are easily made..
I guess this project got the OK by the same process as the UK ID card scheme: let the contractor who stands to gain the work also perform the feasibility study. Prevents any nasty surprises on the conclusion front
I was expecting a sharp upturn in articles like this, not because the John Dvorak style trolling and baiting out desperation for hits but because there is so much positive going on in the Open Source world. The proprietary shops are working overtime to outspin the obvious benefits, and there will be much money spent on 'targeted advertising' (aka known as 'bought editorials'). The SCO case has already shown how easy it is to deceive, or buy. In other words - I expect much press noise because it's the last effective resort of failure.
Linux is making mincemeat in the server market, and even the desktop is now viable with projects like OpenOffice taking barriers away even in the Windows world (don't underestimate the bridge value of alternatives on the 'traditional' platform). Microsoft has screwed up royally with Vista, and the shenanigans to push their proprietary format as ISO compliant have so visibly damaged the ISO organisation that that will be visible long after the marketing guys have plastered it over with spin. Zune has tanked, Xbox has added to the arsenal of total failures known to Microsoft product users and in general the exposure to anti-monopoly legislation is also driving up 'operating' costs.
OLPC is proving that vision, initiative, creativity and ethics can make heavy inroads into the corporate domain of Microsoft and Intel, their agressiveness (and lack of ethics) clearly demonstrates that they are challenged. Moreovere, that's just on a like-for-like basis and ignores the HUGE added value the innovation in OLPC has brought to the computing world. If you want TRUE innovation you need plenty of ideas and an open mind.
"Open" is is a state of mind. An open mind.
.. assuming you have exhausted the local talent pool and want someone from outside, say, the valley, how are they going to find out you're "cool" to work for.
I agree 100% with you that this "cool to work for" is mainly BS (I worked for a consultancy which annually announced this "best company to work for" survey and then told us how to fill it in), but it makes me wonder if you have a volume need for new staff how you're making a good work place clear to them.
I bet if you're having a sensor 'down under' you could use those metrics too, but sensor pollution is going to be a pain.
..
:-).
And so will accidental dietary changes.. excuse me
Ugh. Must have been something I ate
I'm no expert, but AFAIK the problem with CDs is that the data layer is actually on the outside, and is thus subject to anything you can think of: friction, corrosion, different expansion rates potentially promoting separation (that's why you have to be very careful what you use as marker - you're writing directly onto the data layer.
With DVDs the data layer is a bit safer, but there you have the problem that it has to be properly sealed (and that's assuming the sealant itself is not in any way affecting the data layer).
As for the figures, well, I suggest you treat them like statistics. Very decorative, but always in need of full validation..
I was at Media Markt yesterday (and another one of their chain the day before, coincidentally) and they have PLENTY of Wiis on the shelves, ditto at another store I was. I heard from some friends in the UK they had problems getting Nintendo DS Lite so they had to eBay one - again, never seen a shortage where I live.
:-).
I can't explain why there is a shortage in the US and UK, other than that they have obviously shipped too many our way
Nothing in the specs states anything about driver protection, so I guess it'll simply involve an endless string of cloned Knightriders :-)
:-).
I was hoping anyone with better physics knowledge than I would be able to calculate the impact energy. To take almost 2 tonnes of steel down from 300 mph to 0 in about 12 feet (apparently calculated as a deceleration of about 250g) means you have to get rid of a godawful amount of kinetic energy in a very short time. Hell, that's not even going to look good on FILM.. Well, OK, once
I meant 'speech', not 'speach', duh. Not enough caffeine yet, sorry.
IANAL, but first off, your code is YOURS. You have the right to say who/where/what happens, so if YOU choose to release the under a license that compels the user to buy a pizza every other day and someone uses it on that condition (and fulfils it) you're fine.
Your problem comes when someone doesn't follow the rules, and I think you may be a bit too worried because you apear to be in a niche market.
Your motives are to 'spread your knowledge' (it's darn good advertising as well), but to stop someone from repackaging it as theirs and charge for it. The questions are:
- how likely is it that someone actually CAN without you noticing it? A friend of mine is ne of the maybe 15 people in the world who can supply market data REALLY fast (he tweaks to gain nanosecond improvements these days) - there is nobody that can appear afresh on teh scene without these guys noticing. Isn't your market similar (i.e. you'd stop it the moment this 'ripper' would try to sell)?
- how likely is it that someone would actually bother? If yours is for free, and theirs is at a charge it strikes me as sensible that you'd go to the source, and you can prove that. In addition, you have enforcement rights as code owner.
IMHO, package up a framework that is easy enough to use but only offer a simple app as demo to go with it. Or, even better, go the the product manufacturer for distribution - if it comes from them nobody is going to try getting creative.
Unless, of course, it's that main manufacturer you're worried about. In that case go to them with a formal license proposal, you make it publicly available but they can spread it as part of the packege if source formally acknowledged. Dual licensing is your right too, ask the MySQL people..
As stated before, IANAL, and you are to consider my rant of having no more intellectual value that the average George Bush speach. Umm, no. Above that. Let's not put the bar too low..
Good luck!
What MS actually means to say is "backward" compatibility (i.e. being compatible with earlier mishaps called 'IE' which introduced the very non-standards compliant ways of doing things). It's just that AutoFill keeps adding the "s"..
I think it's fantastic. First you break the standards because you like to screw up web standards and force a proprietary world on the Net, and then when that doesn't work you trumpet to all that you are now "fully compliant" as if you weren't the company that made this mess in the first place. Impressive.
I tend to stick my printers on a USB print server, all systems using it as TCP and one using it as remote USB to manage it occasionally (presently using a Hp Officejet Pro K550).
I liked the Canon 4500 (I think it's called Pixma or something) because it can also print CDs, but when I checked Linux compatibility it was poor. So I decided not to buy it.
HP support for Linux is very good, and until Canon gets a clue in the direction I'm afraid HP wins the deal - I use mostly Linux, a bit of Windows and I plan to buy a Macbook next year as well. There is no way I'll buy a printer that isn't properly supported under Linux..
The problem with equations like that is that they make dangerous assumptions about the quality of the cipher in the first place. All you need is one flaw in the algorithm and you're history in a much shorter time - and it's not like that hasn't happened yet.
You're also limiting your attack vector to pure linear brute force. The article itself already alluded to using language analysis to create a prioritised subset for analysis.
I must say that the use of 8 asterisks (********) has never failed to amuse me. Sure, it's the first thing a brute force attack would try, but it does appeal to my sense of humour.
I think you've just created another purpose for a botnet..
It makes for a fine organised crime recipe:
(1) targeted theft
(2) decryption of interesting data with distributed botnet cracking
(3) sale or blackmail?
(4) Profit!
Replace (1) with 'politically motivated arrest'/'espionage'/'anti terror' and (2) with "expensive NSA room heaters" and you have in principle the same mechanism, but "legal"..
BTW, can't see why it would take long to boot up unless you kick the various components sequentially to prevent a power surge. The control node simply keeps updating its distribution list as more and more components come online.
I mean, you might as well go for broke.
:-)
Enron did
LOL
Not only will many people point out that Compiz & Beryl have been around since 2005, there's also the fact that the two eye candy methods are *MUCH* more efficient in processing power - and they do much more.
Vista is like having put a larger engine in a Ferrari because you filled it with a foot of concrete - better coding and actually USING the graphics card for what it can do would have resulted in less of a resource hog. But then Intel would go and support Linux, of course, so inefficiency is a critical part of any new MS product.
Only, this time MS screwed up royally, and Vista is getting close to be considered another Windows ME (not exactly helped by adding DRM to it). It's been the best ad for Linux and OSX ever..
Oh dear, did I stand on some toes?
I was partly kidding, apart from one thing: collateral damage is not just defined by an ability to track and lock onto a target. It's also about identifying the correct target in the first place which does not depend on technology.
The human part needs taking care of as well, which is why I made the further joke about laser pointers. It depends on the method of target acquisition if this becomes an effective weapon or just a faster way for blue on blue.
Someone stated that because it's a laser it'll use a camera - I don't agree that the one follows from the other. A variety of target acquisition methods is probably best, it's sometimes easier to get a local to light up a target than it is to use imagery.
And I still wonder what atmospheric conditions will do to the energy delivery. Will a cloud layer just vaporise?
Look, it sadly appears I have to make it explicitly clear I've been royally taken the piss out of the whole thing. Or, to translate this, I was kidding. Geddit?
I just happen to be well aware of military capacity as I've been dealing with sensor to shooter in a NEC configuration (which is much more entertaining than single force work because it involves external sync and a bucket full of politics), and I know full well how target acquisition works for teh various effects (somewhere between "a bit of a b*tch" and "impossible" if said target is airborne, happens to move around at Mach 6 and your sensor is in another force, but I digress). But that doesn't stop me amusing myself, it's just funny so many people failed to spot that. I was hoping the 'Chinese Embassy' sign would give you a clue, but that was apparently still too subtle. Ah well, that's life.
Next time I'll put a sign up, OK?
Dear .
/sarcasm
Please find, as ordered, your latest shipment of laser pointers, to be handed out to all the kids in the area of your critical infrastructure. Regretfully we have no answer to some kids enjoying burning the retinas of their friends, your local soldiers are reputed to enjoy repleting the local child stock anyway.
The abundance of laser ID points will confuse the targeting system of the US weapon, forcing it into proximity to target properly, and you can then use regular air defence systems.
Please consider the further stack of large signs a gift for doing business with us. Should you find any troops of other nations, simply stick this sign "Chinese embassy" on their premises and the US will kindly take care of them for you under the internationally approved "collateral damage" excuse - all they want is to shoot, the type of target is less important.
Rest assured of our respect for your money^h^h^h^h^hbusiness, and I look forward to hear from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
W Eapons-Handler
Easy. From now on, the target identification is a large sign "Chinese embassy".
:-) /sarcasm
Can't go wrong then. First, off it would no longer be an accident, secondly, it would stop anyone labelling a building "Chinese embassy" and thirdly we can assume a 100% hit rate based on past statistics.
Seems like a win win to me
The statement that there will be little or no collateral damage seems to originate from an unproven premise that they can aim the thing properly in the first place.
It flies. It flies slowly (it's not a fighter plane). It flies nearby (range is up to 20km, and let's hope the adversaries don't have any smoke grenades handy). Yet aim is 100% accurate?
"No collateral damage" - from the club with the two dog film (Barney and Blair)..