OK, OK, so CPU speeds are not trending up at quite the same pace and nonvolatile storage. But it's not like this has gone unnoticed or we haven't been making hardware changes to take advantage of this over the last decade in the data center. Just like we've adjusted to new power, network and virtualization technologies in the data center.
The real story is that CPU speeds are not trending up as steeply as they where 10 years ago, but we've been seeing huge leaps in storage speeds. How this changes the optimum hardware and software configuration is no real mystery, as system designers and integrators have been effectively dealing with this for years now...
Those crazy border guards and their practical jokes.... You knew *somebody* was going to try something more than just black shoe polish on the field glasses...
Wars have started for less than that.... Wait, Oh yea, technically all we have is a cease fire, the Korean war is still technically on.
Look, this is really about Littl' Un staying in power. What matters here is how this is played in the NK government miss-information machine and accepted by the population. What SK is suggesting involves bypassing the iron fisted control of information that NK must maintain to keep Littl' Un in power, at least in a small way for a small part of NK's population which happens to be limited to the border guards for the most part. SK is doing next to nothing, but it's making a show of it.
In the end, nothing will really happen except there will be a renewed hate of Bibber and Britney in the north.. Maybe that draws some mortar fire? But likely not.
Yes, I'm aware of these other antennas. Phased arrays are not well suited to this frequency range due to the physical size required and where they are easy to point, it is difficult to reduce the side lobes and keep the primary lobe having sufficient gain at oblique angles. Dish antennas can have good beam widths with reasonable side lobes, but are very difficult to accurately point because it is a mechanical system.
I seriously doubt a ground based solution is a good idea though using any of these antennas. The system will need to be high enough to see the pilot, but will then be high enough to see a lot of other legitimate users of the spectrum too. IF you are high enough to see something, you are going to be risking interfering with things other than the intended target.
So, to my point, leave the jamming part out and just use the detection parts. If you detect a drone operating where you don't want, quickly find the pilots location and be ready to apprehend the idiot. Tie a camera to the detection and start taking video. Deter illegal operations by catching folks who insist on doing it and make examples of them. None of this requires or is specifically advanced by disabling the drone.
That's not what the article says. The article was talking about airport security.
The government can (and does) do things that us individual citizens would be hauled off to jail for. If they want to protect their open prison yards with such a system, fine, it's just stupid to advertise that they are doing it. Such a system is super easy to work around if you know about it in advance so it's best for the government to keep it hush hush.
Ok, but flying it on a commercial aircraft such as the ones Airbus manufactures is absolutely NOT going to be allowed.
The government can do all sorts of things that private individuals and commercial enterprises are not allowed to do. Jamming Cell phones, spoofing GPS signals, jamming other radio services are things that the government can do, but won't let you do.
Great, it won't be approved in North America for airline transport, or private use. Like it or not, that happens to be a significant part of Airbus' market.
Not to mention, that such a system will fail to be approved by both the FAA and the FCC, which is a significant issue as many of the certification boards in other countries have mutual agreements, which lets manufacturers seek certifications from their country's authority and don't then have to repeat the expensive certification process for every country that their equipment could possibly fly into.
Then there is the prevalence of GPS being used as a navigation tool by the commercial aviation industry nearly world wide. I'm fairly sure that in areas where GPS is allowed to be jammed near aircraft operations, there is a larger danger from other ground based threats (Shoulder fired IR guided missiles, high caliber weapons and such) than from drone collisions.
Don't forget jamming/spoofing GPS signals might actually present a danger to other aircraft in the area. There are IFR approach procedures that use GPS at most major airports in the USA. The FAA won't stand for anybody operating a GPS jammer/spoffer anywhere near any airport.
By the way... Where it is possible to get pretty directional with antennas, 2.4 Ghz is still going to require significant volume to house that antenna. 12cm is still a pretty long wavelength. I have a 29dB gain yagi that's a couple of feet long. Also, all such antennas will have "side lobes" which will carry significant amounts of the energy you feed into the antenna. So, to be effective, you will have to carefully limit the power used or you will run the risk of interfering with unintended transmitters, which makes the problem of jamming a whole lot harder. Not only do you need to accurately point your antenna, you also need to determine how much power is necessary to disrupt the drone's systems.... But, as luck would have it, you don't really know enough so the easy solution is to just blast away at full power....
So, I don't really care how great you think that antenna can be, if you put too much gain in it, you won't be able to accurately point it and it will take up lots of space and when you open up the beam width so you can hope to point it, you are going to end up interfering with licensed legal users of the spectrum when you blast away with enough power to reliably disrupt the data link with the pilot.
Well the other good outcome is all the additional gun sales that are taking place right now... Every time Obama opens his mouth on this issue, gun and ammo sales reach new heights. It's pretty ironic if you ask me.
The FAA has approved GPS IFR approaches at most major airports, there is zero chance they will knowingly allow a GPS jammer/spoofer to operate anyplace near where an approved GPS based IFR approach has been approved. You might cause the drone to land, crash, or await the GPS signal to return, but you might cause the same to happen to an aircraft full of people flying an IFR approach. They may also loose their GPS signal and depending on the exact situation, they may land safely, have to do a missed approach or even possibly crash. When an aircraft is low and slow and pilot work load his high is when the risks are the worst.....
They simply need to leave out the active jamming part of this...
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
Just the interdepartmental squabbling between the FAA and the FCC would kill the idea, but there are other reasons for this.
Jamming the GPS signal, even in a targeted area, is going to be a show stopper anyplace where GPS is used as an approved IFR approach, which is going to include most major airports in the USA. There is ZERO chance the FAA is going to knowingly allow some aircraft to operate a GPS jammer/spoofer anywhere near an airport that has an approved GPS approach procedure. Not going to happen, no way, no how. So, if you are flying an Airbus in or out of any major airport (and what Airbus won't be) forget about turning this system on, at least the GPS part.
Then there is the dubious nature of jamming the WiFi signal. Who knows what the drone is going to do when you try that? Who knows, it might just decide to change course and altitude and head right for the aircraft you are trying to protect. There is no way you know for sure.
About the only part of this system that's viable here is the "I can track where the things are and report the position to authorities" part. Do that part, leave the other parts alone... Track the drone and warn the flight deck of it if it is a conflict. Track the pilot of the drone's location, take a high resolution picture of them and automatically report it Petition to make this data suitable to prosecute the idiots who fly their drones in unsafe areas. You name it... Just don't do the jamming part.
I'd like to see the hydrogen bomb small enough to cause a 5.1 earthquake
H-bombs can be designed with small yields.
Just not this small. H-Bombs (the common name of boosted nuclear devices) require a fission igniter which has a minimum yield which is bigger than what a 5.1 earthquake suggests was produced here. Where this device may have been designed as a fusion boosted device, it looks like the fission part of the device failed to fully assemble before it detonated, which means the fusion booster part would be blown apart before it could ignite.
You see, the trick with nuclear weapons is to get the critical mass assembled quick enough to avoid it going prompt critical before you have the mass assembled in the proper geometry to allow as much of the nuclear material to get used up as you can. If the chain reaction starts too soon, the device disassembles itself before the correct geometry is attained and the bomb will "fizzle", and simply blow the booster assembly apart before it can ignite.
Boy, you just don't get it and keep stuffing that sack with straw...
You where claiming the previous poster was advocating that all mentally ill folks should be allowed to buy guns, when in fact, he/she wasn't. That is the essence of a "straw man" argument. I was pointing out the logical fallacy.
Now grab that match and stop jumping to your own conclusions...
Yea, you are still going to have to repeal that pesky 2nd amendment if you try this on a large scale. Even the liberals on the Supreme Court won't fall for that idea, at least not yet. Then you have the door to door search problem prohibited by the 4th. Face it, guns are here to stay, we need to come up with solutions that recognize that and deal with the reality.
It won't... Be sure the courts will end up deciding this if Obama really intends to push his initiative beyond existing law.... Obama didn't change anything really, he just wants you to think he did.
I'd like to point out that if you look at "Violent Deaths per Capita" the USA is pretty darned safe place, even with guns everywhere. In fact, Gun violence rates have been in steady DECLINE over the last decade or so...
Exactly.. I sure wish the Right's talking heads would just back down the rhetoric and start calling this what it is... Political theater. All flash, no substance, All Talk, zero action.. At least until there is some substance to fan the embers with, such as a real live documented policy change. So he's going to start enforcing the laws on the books? Great, it's about time he started actually doing HIS JOB after 7 years of bloviating over this issue.
The problem here is that we have a legal principle in this country that you cannot preemptively take away people's rights. Government must ALWAYS show cause before it can take away somebody's rights. It's why we require a judge to sign search warrants and cannot just throw somebody in jail indefinitely for no reason.
Owning firearms is something the government MUST allow, just like freedom of speech and the right to not testify at your own trial or give the police information. These rights can be suspended under specific circumstances, but the government is required in each case to show cause.
Who's to say some person with mental illness is unfit? I don't know, but I do know that in order to suspend one's second amendment rights the government must show cause and having mental issues sometime in the past which may or may not be currently manifested seems to be a pretty thin bit of cause...
The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers.
Not true. Licenses are already required for those "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and background checks are required for those purchasing from said licensees and this executive action doesn't change that.
No, but the treat is clearly that the Executive branch wishes to expand the definition of "being in business" to include a whole lot more than what it is understood to mean today. When pressed on this, Josh Earnest CLEARLY indicated that selling as few as ONE firearm, if conducted in some yet to be specified conditions, could make you a dealer in the eyes of the law. I don't know what those conditions are, but the threat is this could be onerous and if pressed in the courts found to be illegal.
The problem here is, nobody knows exactly what the interpretation the administration is suggesting actually is yet how are they going to change enforcement? Which I think betrays Obama's actual play here. He knows that his "common sense reforms" are limited by existing law as interpreted by the courts. He also knows that he really cannot do what his supporter's really want. So he's left with doing something for "show" and trying to couch it in flowery terms, feel good photo ops and sound bites. This is political theater, pure and simple.
This is about politics, not gun violence. It's a smoke and mirrors diversion designed to draw attention away from something. He's using the bully pulpit of the presidency for political purpose. So watch the news stories below the fold on the news papers. Something is going to happen..
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.
LOL, well they run on at over 6,000 feet outside of Pueblo Colorado...
Still, commercial and privet use of such a system is going to be verboten in the USA. They will not be legal for sale to anybody but the government.
Now tell me something I don't already know..
OK, OK, so CPU speeds are not trending up at quite the same pace and nonvolatile storage. But it's not like this has gone unnoticed or we haven't been making hardware changes to take advantage of this over the last decade in the data center. Just like we've adjusted to new power, network and virtualization technologies in the data center.
The real story is that CPU speeds are not trending up as steeply as they where 10 years ago, but we've been seeing huge leaps in storage speeds. How this changes the optimum hardware and software configuration is no real mystery, as system designers and integrators have been effectively dealing with this for years now...
Those crazy border guards and their practical jokes.... You knew *somebody* was going to try something more than just black shoe polish on the field glasses...
Wars have started for less than that.... Wait, Oh yea, technically all we have is a cease fire, the Korean war is still technically on.
Look, this is really about Littl' Un staying in power. What matters here is how this is played in the NK government miss-information machine and accepted by the population. What SK is suggesting involves bypassing the iron fisted control of information that NK must maintain to keep Littl' Un in power, at least in a small way for a small part of NK's population which happens to be limited to the border guards for the most part. SK is doing next to nothing, but it's making a show of it.
In the end, nothing will really happen except there will be a renewed hate of Bibber and Britney in the north.. Maybe that draws some mortar fire? But likely not.
Seriously, this nut job needs to fall down some stairs.
Little Un would just bounce you know.
Yes, I'm aware of these other antennas. Phased arrays are not well suited to this frequency range due to the physical size required and where they are easy to point, it is difficult to reduce the side lobes and keep the primary lobe having sufficient gain at oblique angles. Dish antennas can have good beam widths with reasonable side lobes, but are very difficult to accurately point because it is a mechanical system.
I seriously doubt a ground based solution is a good idea though using any of these antennas. The system will need to be high enough to see the pilot, but will then be high enough to see a lot of other legitimate users of the spectrum too. IF you are high enough to see something, you are going to be risking interfering with things other than the intended target.
So, to my point, leave the jamming part out and just use the detection parts. If you detect a drone operating where you don't want, quickly find the pilots location and be ready to apprehend the idiot. Tie a camera to the detection and start taking video. Deter illegal operations by catching folks who insist on doing it and make examples of them. None of this requires or is specifically advanced by disabling the drone.
That's not what the article says. The article was talking about airport security.
The government can (and does) do things that us individual citizens would be hauled off to jail for. If they want to protect their open prison yards with such a system, fine, it's just stupid to advertise that they are doing it. Such a system is super easy to work around if you know about it in advance so it's best for the government to keep it hush hush.
Ok, but flying it on a commercial aircraft such as the ones Airbus manufactures is absolutely NOT going to be allowed.
The government can do all sorts of things that private individuals and commercial enterprises are not allowed to do. Jamming Cell phones, spoofing GPS signals, jamming other radio services are things that the government can do, but won't let you do.
Great, it won't be approved in North America for airline transport, or private use. Like it or not, that happens to be a significant part of Airbus' market.
Not to mention, that such a system will fail to be approved by both the FAA and the FCC, which is a significant issue as many of the certification boards in other countries have mutual agreements, which lets manufacturers seek certifications from their country's authority and don't then have to repeat the expensive certification process for every country that their equipment could possibly fly into.
Then there is the prevalence of GPS being used as a navigation tool by the commercial aviation industry nearly world wide. I'm fairly sure that in areas where GPS is allowed to be jammed near aircraft operations, there is a larger danger from other ground based threats (Shoulder fired IR guided missiles, high caliber weapons and such) than from drone collisions.
Don't forget jamming/spoofing GPS signals might actually present a danger to other aircraft in the area. There are IFR approach procedures that use GPS at most major airports in the USA. The FAA won't stand for anybody operating a GPS jammer/spoffer anywhere near any airport.
By the way... Where it is possible to get pretty directional with antennas, 2.4 Ghz is still going to require significant volume to house that antenna. 12cm is still a pretty long wavelength. I have a 29dB gain yagi that's a couple of feet long. Also, all such antennas will have "side lobes" which will carry significant amounts of the energy you feed into the antenna. So, to be effective, you will have to carefully limit the power used or you will run the risk of interfering with unintended transmitters, which makes the problem of jamming a whole lot harder. Not only do you need to accurately point your antenna, you also need to determine how much power is necessary to disrupt the drone's systems.... But, as luck would have it, you don't really know enough so the easy solution is to just blast away at full power....
So, I don't really care how great you think that antenna can be, if you put too much gain in it, you won't be able to accurately point it and it will take up lots of space and when you open up the beam width so you can hope to point it, you are going to end up interfering with licensed legal users of the spectrum when you blast away with enough power to reliably disrupt the data link with the pilot.
Well the other good outcome is all the additional gun sales that are taking place right now... Every time Obama opens his mouth on this issue, gun and ammo sales reach new heights. It's pretty ironic if you ask me.
The FAA has approved GPS IFR approaches at most major airports, there is zero chance they will knowingly allow a GPS jammer/spoofer to operate anyplace near where an approved GPS based IFR approach has been approved. You might cause the drone to land, crash, or await the GPS signal to return, but you might cause the same to happen to an aircraft full of people flying an IFR approach. They may also loose their GPS signal and depending on the exact situation, they may land safely, have to do a missed approach or even possibly crash. When an aircraft is low and slow and pilot work load his high is when the risks are the worst.....
They simply need to leave out the active jamming part of this...
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
Just the interdepartmental squabbling between the FAA and the FCC would kill the idea, but there are other reasons for this.
Jamming the GPS signal, even in a targeted area, is going to be a show stopper anyplace where GPS is used as an approved IFR approach, which is going to include most major airports in the USA. There is ZERO chance the FAA is going to knowingly allow some aircraft to operate a GPS jammer/spoofer anywhere near an airport that has an approved GPS approach procedure. Not going to happen, no way, no how. So, if you are flying an Airbus in or out of any major airport (and what Airbus won't be) forget about turning this system on, at least the GPS part.
Then there is the dubious nature of jamming the WiFi signal. Who knows what the drone is going to do when you try that? Who knows, it might just decide to change course and altitude and head right for the aircraft you are trying to protect. There is no way you know for sure.
About the only part of this system that's viable here is the "I can track where the things are and report the position to authorities" part. Do that part, leave the other parts alone... Track the drone and warn the flight deck of it if it is a conflict. Track the pilot of the drone's location, take a high resolution picture of them and automatically report it Petition to make this data suitable to prosecute the idiots who fly their drones in unsafe areas. You name it... Just don't do the jamming part.
Not so... There ARE byproducts of nuclear fission that should be observable.
Can you say Neutrinos?
I'd like to see the hydrogen bomb small enough to cause a 5.1 earthquake
H-bombs can be designed with small yields.
Just not this small. H-Bombs (the common name of boosted nuclear devices) require a fission igniter which has a minimum yield which is bigger than what a 5.1 earthquake suggests was produced here. Where this device may have been designed as a fusion boosted device, it looks like the fission part of the device failed to fully assemble before it detonated, which means the fusion booster part would be blown apart before it could ignite.
You see, the trick with nuclear weapons is to get the critical mass assembled quick enough to avoid it going prompt critical before you have the mass assembled in the proper geometry to allow as much of the nuclear material to get used up as you can. If the chain reaction starts too soon, the device disassembles itself before the correct geometry is attained and the bomb will "fizzle", and simply blow the booster assembly apart before it can ignite.
Boy, you just don't get it and keep stuffing that sack with straw...
You where claiming the previous poster was advocating that all mentally ill folks should be allowed to buy guns, when in fact, he/she wasn't. That is the essence of a "straw man" argument. I was pointing out the logical fallacy.
Now grab that match and stop jumping to your own conclusions...
Yea, you are still going to have to repeal that pesky 2nd amendment if you try this on a large scale. Even the liberals on the Supreme Court won't fall for that idea, at least not yet. Then you have the door to door search problem prohibited by the 4th. Face it, guns are here to stay, we need to come up with solutions that recognize that and deal with the reality.
It won't... Be sure the courts will end up deciding this if Obama really intends to push his initiative beyond existing law.... Obama didn't change anything really, he just wants you to think he did.
I'd like to point out that if you look at "Violent Deaths per Capita" the USA is pretty darned safe place, even with guns everywhere. In fact, Gun violence rates have been in steady DECLINE over the last decade or so...
Exactly.. I sure wish the Right's talking heads would just back down the rhetoric and start calling this what it is... Political theater. All flash, no substance, All Talk, zero action.. At least until there is some substance to fan the embers with, such as a real live documented policy change. So he's going to start enforcing the laws on the books? Great, it's about time he started actually doing HIS JOB after 7 years of bloviating over this issue.
And they thought Trump was nuts with the deportation of all the illegals idea... Shesh..
The problem here is that we have a legal principle in this country that you cannot preemptively take away people's rights. Government must ALWAYS show cause before it can take away somebody's rights. It's why we require a judge to sign search warrants and cannot just throw somebody in jail indefinitely for no reason.
Owning firearms is something the government MUST allow, just like freedom of speech and the right to not testify at your own trial or give the police information. These rights can be suspended under specific circumstances, but the government is required in each case to show cause.
Who's to say some person with mental illness is unfit? I don't know, but I do know that in order to suspend one's second amendment rights the government must show cause and having mental issues sometime in the past which may or may not be currently manifested seems to be a pretty thin bit of cause...
Go set your straw man on fire...
You left it on overnight on patch release Tuesday with auto update turned on eh? Buddy you got problems... BSD
The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers.
Not true. Licenses are already required for those "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and background checks are required for those purchasing from said licensees and this executive action doesn't change that.
No, but the treat is clearly that the Executive branch wishes to expand the definition of "being in business" to include a whole lot more than what it is understood to mean today. When pressed on this, Josh Earnest CLEARLY indicated that selling as few as ONE firearm, if conducted in some yet to be specified conditions, could make you a dealer in the eyes of the law. I don't know what those conditions are, but the threat is this could be onerous and if pressed in the courts found to be illegal.
The problem here is, nobody knows exactly what the interpretation the administration is suggesting actually is yet how are they going to change enforcement? Which I think betrays Obama's actual play here. He knows that his "common sense reforms" are limited by existing law as interpreted by the courts. He also knows that he really cannot do what his supporter's really want. So he's left with doing something for "show" and trying to couch it in flowery terms, feel good photo ops and sound bites. This is political theater, pure and simple.
This is about politics, not gun violence. It's a smoke and mirrors diversion designed to draw attention away from something. He's using the bully pulpit of the presidency for political purpose. So watch the news stories below the fold on the news papers. Something is going to happen..