These days, try to flash new firmware w/o a new boot loader... Good luck, most of this stuff is now starting to require the firmware image to be signed, which is enforced by the boot loader. Unless you happen to know the private signing key that the boot loader's public validation key matches so you can sign the new firmware, it will brick your device.
It is not on all devices yet, but you can bet it won't be long..
I cannot argue that.... But last time I got a pink slip turned out to be one of the best bonanzas I ever had financially with the severance package I got. They even *admitted* they fired the wrong guy in my exit interview and asked me to stay. When they refused to pay out the severance and retention bonus for a 90 day stint that turned into 120 (a total of about 1/2 a year's salary) if I stayed, I left of course... But I've just now, 15 years later will have a year that matches that one income wise...
Personally, I think they are loosing their shirts to two things. 1. There is lots of competition now in this area, Cisco used to be just about the only game in town and that's driving equipment and support costs down. 2. Their core competency of Routing and Switching has seen very little technical innovation over the last decade, so people are not needing to upgrade their equipment. Really, for most desktops 100BaseT is plenty fast enough. There has been some changes in the server room, but most of that money goes to the server vendors.
Cisco was the latest new thing about 15 years ago, now they are going the way of Sun Microsystems, Digital and the like. I expect them to continue on this path until they either merge with somebody larger and we loose the Cisco name to some Hyphenated company name or die.
This is right from the MBA playbook for juicing your short term stock price.
Sometimes a reduction in force is totally necessary. I worked for a company that halved it's work force between 2000 and 2005 and just missed getting de-listed from the exchange by 2 days because the stock price was too low. In this case, the MBA's where right and let half the work force walk because the other option was everybody walking when the creditors closed us down.
Now, I don't like the "bean counter" types any more than the next technically focused guy, but they are a necessary evil. You need somebody watching the money stacks to keep your paycheck from bouncing and making sure the company has the cash to pay the electric bill and rent. So, don't bad mouth them too much. They may not know very much about what you do, but I'm confident you don't know much about what they do either.
Reminds me of an old Dilbert... Where the PHB was coming up with a project plan. "I have to start with some assumptions.... So, I'll assume anything I don't understand is easy." He presents his project plan to Dilbert and it starts "Design a database to maintain the exact location of every object in the universe: Time allotted 2 hours"....
I change between cable & Verizon dsl or fios depending on price.
I don't believe you. When you subscribe to FiOS; they disconnect your copper and have no way of going back to it. It is *extremely* difficult to keep copper unless you are a business, or have some major legitimate reason for keeping copper. In which case; they will charge you for an extra line.
Huh? Oh you mean for the phone line... Yea, if Verizon/Frontier is your LEC and they have installed FIOS and you didn't have another cable option, then you are up the optical creek. But I dare say that's not very common. I know of new construction areas where this is true, where they never put in copper, and they are stuck with one option, but this is not very common around here.
At my home, they installed FIOS about 10 years ago. They left the TWC copper connection dangling and just hooked up the FIOS ONT cable to my house wiring that way. I can *easily* switch back and forth between the two options and get cable, phone and internet from either or both. I haven't switched off of FIOS though, so I don't know if they left the copper in working order or cut it when they where burying the optical run, but I don't really care. TWC would gladly bury another wire for me when I switch. I have a feeling I won't have to wait too much longer though, I'm not happy with Frontier's customer service so I'm likely going to dump the fiber for awhile once my contract is up and they start bumping up my rates again.
And you figured all this out when exactly? Last week?
Tell me, oh wise one, WHO was saying this back before the invasion started or while the war was underway but Sadam was still in control of Iraq? You? Do you have proof of your position AT THE TIME? A news paper clipping, a letter to the editor or even a BLOG post? I dare say you don't, not to mention that literally NOBODY else held that view, even in the democratic party, at the time.
You see, you are engaged in revising history to suit your views. Which is a dangerous way to run a rail road/country/life...
BTW.. I'd like to point out that the current conflict with ISIS is being conducted under the exact same "use of force" authorization as the Iraq invasion was... So are you now saying we should just go full isolationist and not do ANYTHING now, given the flawed nature of the authority the president now has to prosecute this conflict? Go ahead and contradict yourself...
And you are making confident assertions about things you have no proof of.... First the Clintons and now me... Tinfoil hat getting too tight there buddy?
I knew somebody who was murdered... She was killed by her husband with a baseball bat who was trying to cover up his affair (and get out of his marriage apparently). He might have gotten away with it had he not disposed of the bat, gloves and the valuables he "stole" in the dumpster at work, or had the garbage truck come before the police.. I knew two people who killed themselves by shooting themselves in the head (one with a high powered deer rifle) too. They may not be mysterious circumstances now, but at the time, they where kind of perplexing.
Who's surprised by this? In the quest for the lowest fare possible, who has money for preventing something that "might* happen that keeps aircraft on the ground, say like a power outage in your computer center? Apparently NOT Delta.. I'm guessing most of the other carriers too, they've just not been lucky enough.
Makes you wonder about all that expensive aircraft maintenance really getting done...
Think of that next time you strap one of their aircraft on for a few hours..
You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you. The distain is clear from your writings. "They cannot help themselves" you say, Really? They are like lambs to the slaughter in your eyes?
Hate has a way of marginalizing those groups they don't like for what ever reason. The color of their skin, their religious beliefs and now political affiliation of late has become a way to focus one's frustration, turn it into hate. Oh they are too stupid, to weak minded, or how ever you wish to say it, to understand the truth like me.... Surely you hear yourself? Don't you see the historical parallels here?
So why do you have such obvious distain? I could assume you just are out to hate because that's what you are... Or because you've been indoctrinated into believing folks are worthy of such treatment by you... Which shall I choose to believe about you? Hmmm...
Ok, so let's say we just do what you say and assume based on your naked assertions that this list is hogwash and that you really are a conservative (I don't believe either claim, btw).
How do you explain all these DNC officials who died right when the DNC leaks happened, many of them under mysterious circumstances? A "robber" allegedly killed Rich, but why weren't his valuables taken? Etc.
Unhappy coincidence seems to answer your question.
Look, I'm not saying these folks where not murdered, that's for the police to answer. Nor am I saying some left wing nut job didn't order a hit or pull the trigger on these, I'm ONLY saying Hillary or Bill are not stupid enough to be caught anywhere near something like that. Making up some conspiracy theory that puts the Clinton's in the middle of somebody's murder is a bit beyond reason. There is ZERO evidence at this point. Now if you find the murder weapon with Hillary's finger prints on it in the river, call me. Until then, knock it off. All you are doing is making the lefties laugh at you and loading their guns with "you guys are nuts" ammo.
Hater's got to hate and you have been drinking the Kool-Aid of hate son.
:Like I tell the nut jobs in my party, Try to step back from the partisan rhetoric and actually make your own reasoned arguments. The other side generally isn't full of spite, stupid or just saying stuff to be hateful. Deep down they mean well, even if they don't agree with your ideas or policy choices. That doesn't make them demons worthy of contempt, but people who have valid perspectives that differ from yours.
As it stands, politics has become a blood sport, where to win elections you divide and demonize your opponents. Recognize it for what it is sir, and don't fall for it.
I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.
Exactly this. They are as untrustworthy as you can imagine anyone to be, but they are intelligent sorts who know full well what the punishment is for which crime, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.
They are influence peddlers of unprecedented skill and cunning working at the international level. They've turned a governorship into a presidency and the presidency into some *real* money. Why they want to mess this up with Hillary running for office? I guess they figure they can parlay a sitting and an ex president into some serious money, and might actually be able to get away with murder then.
Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.
So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe? Dredging up Vince Foster and Fort Marcy Park is pointless and detracts from *real* issues, like Hillary's role in the "bimbo eruption" team and what she allowed to be said about the long parade of women claiming Bill sexually abused them, then turning around claiming to be the "champion of women's issues" because she happens to have that kind of plumbing, not because she's done anything.
Come on dude, take the point I'm making and MOVE ON...
I'm saying, we did what we THOUGHT was RIGHT at the time. Everybody thought it was right, including both sides of congress and the UN, to topple the dictator in Iraq. Your claim that this was somehow a mistake, with the benefit of hind sight is pointless really. We invaded, mistake or not we have to now deal with where we are now.
However, if you get to play "It was a mistake in hindsight" so do I... I claim that the current administration's hasty withdraw from Iraq before having won the peace was a WORSE mistake. There where a lot of people who understood that it would go badly for Iraq and or interests in the region if we pulled up the tent stakes and left Iraq and where pleading with the president to not do it. To get elected, he did it anyway, so he made a controversial decision despite the fact that there was not agreement it was a good idea.
I'm not able to make too big of a case here except that tooling up to build new B52 airframes is a non-starter from a cost perspective, if you are going to tool up anyway, add a few bucks to the NRE bucket and build something better.. Also, converting a modern low wing commercial aircraft to be a ordinance delivery truck is going to be a pretty expensive no matter how you slice it, expensive enough to pay a significant amount of NRE for a whole new design I'll wager.
The B1 and B2 where always going to be built in small numbers. We simply don't need that many blazingly fast (the B1) or nearly invisible (B2 although not any more) manned platforms do deliver nuclear weapons deep into hostile territory. We have cruise missiles and ICBM's for that now. What happens is, in order to get the cost/unit under some imagined magic number so the program will make it though congress, they spread the NRE across more than they intend to build in the first place, then cancel the program to "save money" when they got what they needed. They did that with the B1, B2 and more recently the F22, and they will do it with their new bomber too.
Also, the B52 is showing it's age design wise. Dropping tons of ordinance from 40,000 feet is generally NOT that accurate because in that situation you are dropping dumb bombs to start with, coupled with a 40,000 foot drop a dumb bomb's impact point is statistically an area many times the size of the area it destroys. Dropping smart bombs is a onesy twosey kind of thing, a task that you *can* do with a B52, but it's not a good platform for that kind of work as it's too big, has to fly too high to stay safe (above 10,000 ft). So B52's are used for carpet bombing campaigns, a tactic that I don't see much use for that we do with such low frequency that our current fleet of 52's would be going bad from disuse if we keep them just for that.
So, you are mostly right, but I think the Pentagon is doing the correct thing here buying a new bomber. The B52 just isn't that useful going forward as technology and tactics evolve where it's special skills are no longer in high demand.
R&D costs have over run, and that's not good, but operational cost over time is what is going to really make or break the success of this program. By all appearances, operational costs will go down from our current fleet as the F35 replaces the multiple aging aircraft we fly now. Think about it. If we get all three services flying the same hardware, buying spares will be in greater volume at lower cost per unit. Where we now have to spare parts for 5+ aircraft on your average carrier, if we can replace 3-4 aircraft with one kind of aircraft I've halved the number of things I need to keep down in the spares, freeing up space for things like food, ordinance, fuel ect. I also reduce the maintenance equipment I need to keep on hand.
Not to mention... That if our allies are flying these things too, everybody will be carrying spares and can share parts in a pinch...
Naw, I'm not sure flying the B-52 into the future is such a good idea. These aircraft have actually changed roles a number of times during their long tenure and have proven to be unusually flexible. However, they do have some serious limitations that will not be overcome even if you strip it down to the bare metal and literally replace everything inside with new modern stuff. Not to mention that the airframes we have are getting pretty old and have exceeded their design lifetimes and flight cycles by multiple times. We could tool up and build more I suppose, but I really don't think that's a good option.
What the air force needs is a low altitude "nap of the earth" flying ordinance delivery truck, that's stealthy, fast, nimble and can avoid detection by ground based Air to Air systems and deliver ordinance on target in a cost effective way. The B2 cannot do that (it's slot and not low), nor can the B1 (It's fast but REALLY expensive and looses it's stealth when doing nap of the earth kind of activities). The B52, is just too cumbersome for nap of the earth flying, will never be stealthy or fast. Because of this it has been relegated to bombing missions above 10,000 feet where it can and does deliver a boat load of ordinance on top of the advisories' ground forces, or as a mobile stand off guided missile launch platform. As great as the B52 is, the air force needs something it cannot do.
I'm not sure I disagree with you, but the DOD just HAD to build an aircraft for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy all in one design to reduce costs.. I don't think the initial decision was a good one, but given what the DOD asked for, the F35 is not a bad solution and I do think it will be cheaper to operate and maintain, if it makes it through it's expected service life.
I also think the way the Pentagon is planning now has changed substantially. Who knows if they are right. Of course it would take live shooting war to really know, but I don't see our current conflicts needing to drop tons of ordinance in lots of places really fast. Right now we are precision bombing at low frequencies at isolate targets for the most part, and for that you don't need an airborne truck, but something you can drop a 500lb JDAM into a 10' circle with now and then. Besides the Air Force is out buying a fleet of heavy bombers, with stealth, to take on the "Deliver Tons of Ordinance over yonder" mission so I think they are already planning to shift away from the little (if the F-16 is little) delivery options.
If "it compiles" is what the specification says needs to happen before it ships, then yes.
The F35 is a work in progress and will be for a few more years as the software teams struggle to put more capabilities into their code and prove that they work in the field and work to iron out the issues found during operation by end users. This is expected and part of the lower risk program design where they walk, run then fly and field. Actually it makes sense, even if it looks bad at first, and we software guys do this all the time when we do these iterative development methodologies where we do sprints, deliver a little, test a little, add more requirements and then rinse lather and repeat until nobody wants to do it anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
These days, try to flash new firmware w/o a new boot loader... Good luck, most of this stuff is now starting to require the firmware image to be signed, which is enforced by the boot loader. Unless you happen to know the private signing key that the boot loader's public validation key matches so you can sign the new firmware, it will brick your device.
It is not on all devices yet, but you can bet it won't be long..
I cannot argue that.... But last time I got a pink slip turned out to be one of the best bonanzas I ever had financially with the severance package I got. They even *admitted* they fired the wrong guy in my exit interview and asked me to stay. When they refused to pay out the severance and retention bonus for a 90 day stint that turned into 120 (a total of about 1/2 a year's salary) if I stayed, I left of course... But I've just now, 15 years later will have a year that matches that one income wise...
Don't worry, they will make it up in volume..
Personally, I think they are loosing their shirts to two things. 1. There is lots of competition now in this area, Cisco used to be just about the only game in town and that's driving equipment and support costs down. 2. Their core competency of Routing and Switching has seen very little technical innovation over the last decade, so people are not needing to upgrade their equipment. Really, for most desktops 100BaseT is plenty fast enough. There has been some changes in the server room, but most of that money goes to the server vendors.
Cisco was the latest new thing about 15 years ago, now they are going the way of Sun Microsystems, Digital and the like. I expect them to continue on this path until they either merge with somebody larger and we loose the Cisco name to some Hyphenated company name or die.
This is right from the MBA playbook for juicing your short term stock price.
Sometimes a reduction in force is totally necessary. I worked for a company that halved it's work force between 2000 and 2005 and just missed getting de-listed from the exchange by 2 days because the stock price was too low. In this case, the MBA's where right and let half the work force walk because the other option was everybody walking when the creditors closed us down.
Now, I don't like the "bean counter" types any more than the next technically focused guy, but they are a necessary evil. You need somebody watching the money stacks to keep your paycheck from bouncing and making sure the company has the cash to pay the electric bill and rent. So, don't bad mouth them too much. They may not know very much about what you do, but I'm confident you don't know much about what they do either.
Reminds me of an old Dilbert... Where the PHB was coming up with a project plan. "I have to start with some assumptions.... So, I'll assume anything I don't understand is easy." He presents his project plan to Dilbert and it starts "Design a database to maintain the exact location of every object in the universe: Time allotted 2 hours"....
I change between cable & Verizon dsl or fios depending on price.
I don't believe you. When you subscribe to FiOS; they disconnect your copper and have no way of going back to it. It is *extremely* difficult to keep copper unless you are a business, or have some major legitimate reason for keeping copper. In which case; they will charge you for an extra line.
Huh? Oh you mean for the phone line... Yea, if Verizon/Frontier is your LEC and they have installed FIOS and you didn't have another cable option, then you are up the optical creek. But I dare say that's not very common. I know of new construction areas where this is true, where they never put in copper, and they are stuck with one option, but this is not very common around here.
At my home, they installed FIOS about 10 years ago. They left the TWC copper connection dangling and just hooked up the FIOS ONT cable to my house wiring that way. I can *easily* switch back and forth between the two options and get cable, phone and internet from either or both. I haven't switched off of FIOS though, so I don't know if they left the copper in working order or cut it when they where burying the optical run, but I don't really care. TWC would gladly bury another wire for me when I switch. I have a feeling I won't have to wait too much longer though, I'm not happy with Frontier's customer service so I'm likely going to dump the fiber for awhile once my contract is up and they start bumping up my rates again.
And you figured all this out when exactly? Last week?
Tell me, oh wise one, WHO was saying this back before the invasion started or while the war was underway but Sadam was still in control of Iraq? You? Do you have proof of your position AT THE TIME? A news paper clipping, a letter to the editor or even a BLOG post? I dare say you don't, not to mention that literally NOBODY else held that view, even in the democratic party, at the time.
You see, you are engaged in revising history to suit your views. Which is a dangerous way to run a rail road/country/life...
BTW.. I'd like to point out that the current conflict with ISIS is being conducted under the exact same "use of force" authorization as the Iraq invasion was... So are you now saying we should just go full isolationist and not do ANYTHING now, given the flawed nature of the authority the president now has to prosecute this conflict? Go ahead and contradict yourself...
And you are making confident assertions about things you have no proof of.... First the Clintons and now me... Tinfoil hat getting too tight there buddy?
I knew somebody who was murdered... She was killed by her husband with a baseball bat who was trying to cover up his affair (and get out of his marriage apparently). He might have gotten away with it had he not disposed of the bat, gloves and the valuables he "stole" in the dumpster at work, or had the garbage truck come before the police.. I knew two people who killed themselves by shooting themselves in the head (one with a high powered deer rifle) too. They may not be mysterious circumstances now, but at the time, they where kind of perplexing.
Who's surprised by this? In the quest for the lowest fare possible, who has money for preventing something that "might* happen that keeps aircraft on the ground, say like a power outage in your computer center? Apparently NOT Delta.. I'm guessing most of the other carriers too, they've just not been lucky enough.
Makes you wonder about all that expensive aircraft maintenance really getting done...
Think of that next time you strap one of their aircraft on for a few hours..
You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you. The distain is clear from your writings. "They cannot help themselves" you say, Really? They are like lambs to the slaughter in your eyes?
Hate has a way of marginalizing those groups they don't like for what ever reason. The color of their skin, their religious beliefs and now political affiliation of late has become a way to focus one's frustration, turn it into hate. Oh they are too stupid, to weak minded, or how ever you wish to say it, to understand the truth like me.... Surely you hear yourself? Don't you see the historical parallels here?
So why do you have such obvious distain? I could assume you just are out to hate because that's what you are... Or because you've been indoctrinated into believing folks are worthy of such treatment by you... Which shall I choose to believe about you? Hmmm...
Yeah, it is nutty tinfoil hat stuff.
However, it is interesting that they came up with someone who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. Twice.
Pussies. In Russia people commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head... Twice.
Real men play Russian Roulette with an automatic and 2 out of 15 rounds in the magazine..
Ok, so let's say we just do what you say and assume based on your naked assertions that this list is hogwash and that you really are a conservative (I don't believe either claim, btw). How do you explain all these DNC officials who died right when the DNC leaks happened, many of them under mysterious circumstances? A "robber" allegedly killed Rich, but why weren't his valuables taken? Etc.
Unhappy coincidence seems to answer your question.
Look, I'm not saying these folks where not murdered, that's for the police to answer. Nor am I saying some left wing nut job didn't order a hit or pull the trigger on these, I'm ONLY saying Hillary or Bill are not stupid enough to be caught anywhere near something like that. Making up some conspiracy theory that puts the Clinton's in the middle of somebody's murder is a bit beyond reason. There is ZERO evidence at this point. Now if you find the murder weapon with Hillary's finger prints on it in the river, call me. Until then, knock it off. All you are doing is making the lefties laugh at you and loading their guns with "you guys are nuts" ammo.
Hater's got to hate and you have been drinking the Kool-Aid of hate son.
:Like I tell the nut jobs in my party, Try to step back from the partisan rhetoric and actually make your own reasoned arguments. The other side generally isn't full of spite, stupid or just saying stuff to be hateful. Deep down they mean well, even if they don't agree with your ideas or policy choices. That doesn't make them demons worthy of contempt, but people who have valid perspectives that differ from yours.
As it stands, politics has become a blood sport, where to win elections you divide and demonize your opponents. Recognize it for what it is sir, and don't fall for it.
I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.
Exactly this. They are as untrustworthy as you can imagine anyone to be, but they are intelligent sorts who know full well what the punishment is for which crime, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.
They are influence peddlers of unprecedented skill and cunning working at the international level. They've turned a governorship into a presidency and the presidency into some *real* money. Why they want to mess this up with Hillary running for office? I guess they figure they can parlay a sitting and an ex president into some serious money, and might actually be able to get away with murder then.
There's a list, it's over 50 people.
Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.
So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe? Dredging up Vince Foster and Fort Marcy Park is pointless and detracts from *real* issues, like Hillary's role in the "bimbo eruption" team and what she allowed to be said about the long parade of women claiming Bill sexually abused them, then turning around claiming to be the "champion of women's issues" because she happens to have that kind of plumbing, not because she's done anything.
Come on dude, take the point I'm making and MOVE ON...
I'm saying, we did what we THOUGHT was RIGHT at the time. Everybody thought it was right, including both sides of congress and the UN, to topple the dictator in Iraq. Your claim that this was somehow a mistake, with the benefit of hind sight is pointless really. We invaded, mistake or not we have to now deal with where we are now.
However, if you get to play "It was a mistake in hindsight" so do I... I claim that the current administration's hasty withdraw from Iraq before having won the peace was a WORSE mistake. There where a lot of people who understood that it would go badly for Iraq and or interests in the region if we pulled up the tent stakes and left Iraq and where pleading with the president to not do it. To get elected, he did it anyway, so he made a controversial decision despite the fact that there was not agreement it was a good idea.
I ask you, You do see your logical problem right?
I'm not able to make too big of a case here except that tooling up to build new B52 airframes is a non-starter from a cost perspective, if you are going to tool up anyway, add a few bucks to the NRE bucket and build something better.. Also, converting a modern low wing commercial aircraft to be a ordinance delivery truck is going to be a pretty expensive no matter how you slice it, expensive enough to pay a significant amount of NRE for a whole new design I'll wager.
The B1 and B2 where always going to be built in small numbers. We simply don't need that many blazingly fast (the B1) or nearly invisible (B2 although not any more) manned platforms do deliver nuclear weapons deep into hostile territory. We have cruise missiles and ICBM's for that now. What happens is, in order to get the cost/unit under some imagined magic number so the program will make it though congress, they spread the NRE across more than they intend to build in the first place, then cancel the program to "save money" when they got what they needed. They did that with the B1, B2 and more recently the F22, and they will do it with their new bomber too.
Also, the B52 is showing it's age design wise. Dropping tons of ordinance from 40,000 feet is generally NOT that accurate because in that situation you are dropping dumb bombs to start with, coupled with a 40,000 foot drop a dumb bomb's impact point is statistically an area many times the size of the area it destroys. Dropping smart bombs is a onesy twosey kind of thing, a task that you *can* do with a B52, but it's not a good platform for that kind of work as it's too big, has to fly too high to stay safe (above 10,000 ft). So B52's are used for carpet bombing campaigns, a tactic that I don't see much use for that we do with such low frequency that our current fleet of 52's would be going bad from disuse if we keep them just for that.
So, you are mostly right, but I think the Pentagon is doing the correct thing here buying a new bomber. The B52 just isn't that useful going forward as technology and tactics evolve where it's special skills are no longer in high demand.
Yes, this was one of it's design constraints.
R&D costs have over run, and that's not good, but operational cost over time is what is going to really make or break the success of this program. By all appearances, operational costs will go down from our current fleet as the F35 replaces the multiple aging aircraft we fly now. Think about it. If we get all three services flying the same hardware, buying spares will be in greater volume at lower cost per unit. Where we now have to spare parts for 5+ aircraft on your average carrier, if we can replace 3-4 aircraft with one kind of aircraft I've halved the number of things I need to keep down in the spares, freeing up space for things like food, ordinance, fuel ect. I also reduce the maintenance equipment I need to keep on hand.
Not to mention... That if our allies are flying these things too, everybody will be carrying spares and can share parts in a pinch...
Naw, I'm not sure flying the B-52 into the future is such a good idea. These aircraft have actually changed roles a number of times during their long tenure and have proven to be unusually flexible. However, they do have some serious limitations that will not be overcome even if you strip it down to the bare metal and literally replace everything inside with new modern stuff. Not to mention that the airframes we have are getting pretty old and have exceeded their design lifetimes and flight cycles by multiple times. We could tool up and build more I suppose, but I really don't think that's a good option.
What the air force needs is a low altitude "nap of the earth" flying ordinance delivery truck, that's stealthy, fast, nimble and can avoid detection by ground based Air to Air systems and deliver ordinance on target in a cost effective way. The B2 cannot do that (it's slot and not low), nor can the B1 (It's fast but REALLY expensive and looses it's stealth when doing nap of the earth kind of activities). The B52, is just too cumbersome for nap of the earth flying, will never be stealthy or fast. Because of this it has been relegated to bombing missions above 10,000 feet where it can and does deliver a boat load of ordinance on top of the advisories' ground forces, or as a mobile stand off guided missile launch platform. As great as the B52 is, the air force needs something it cannot do.
No... It's Agile development, half baked with nuts...
I'm not sure I disagree with you, but the DOD just HAD to build an aircraft for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy all in one design to reduce costs.. I don't think the initial decision was a good one, but given what the DOD asked for, the F35 is not a bad solution and I do think it will be cheaper to operate and maintain, if it makes it through it's expected service life.
I also think the way the Pentagon is planning now has changed substantially. Who knows if they are right. Of course it would take live shooting war to really know, but I don't see our current conflicts needing to drop tons of ordinance in lots of places really fast. Right now we are precision bombing at low frequencies at isolate targets for the most part, and for that you don't need an airborne truck, but something you can drop a 500lb JDAM into a 10' circle with now and then. Besides the Air Force is out buying a fleet of heavy bombers, with stealth, to take on the "Deliver Tons of Ordinance over yonder" mission so I think they are already planning to shift away from the little (if the F-16 is little) delivery options.
If "it compiles" is what the specification says needs to happen before it ships, then yes.
The F35 is a work in progress and will be for a few more years as the software teams struggle to put more capabilities into their code and prove that they work in the field and work to iron out the issues found during operation by end users. This is expected and part of the lower risk program design where they walk, run then fly and field. Actually it makes sense, even if it looks bad at first, and we software guys do this all the time when we do these iterative development methodologies where we do sprints, deliver a little, test a little, add more requirements and then rinse lather and repeat until nobody wants to do it anymore.
No, I heard the original "woosh"... Actually I've heard two to your one at this point, though the second was obviously not as loud..
Not me Marty.. The car!
Yea, but I can look at the source code for android... Well Most of it anyway... Try that with IOS or Windows!
Besides, generally the issues with Google and Android are not the OS, but the applications that get loaded on the OS..