but the picture seems to have something at the rear of the car which looks like it's to produce thrust
The artist's rendering is a picture of a flying car with a guy shooting out the door with a kind of "pchew, pchew" visual effect.
I wouldn't read anything about any actual technology from this. It's popular mechanics filling in a visual, I doubt very much that it's rooted in anything meaningful.
Heck, I doubt they'll be able to build a flying HMMV. Nobody has managed to create a flying car yet -- at least, not a viable one. This is DARPA asking for a pony -- who knows though, this time might be it.
even microsoft doesn't like.net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?
Eh? Really?
This is actually the first I'm hearing of this (I'm not an active MS developer) -- are they deprecating the entire.NET? Or just a couple of parts of it?
I actually kind of liked a lot of the aspects of.NET when I was using it.
"How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question."
It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL. But more to the point, if you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. If you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.
Horseshit.
If your answer to "how do you put something into the public domain, and ensure that it stays in the public domain" boils down to "use the GPL" then one of the following is true:
You don't know what public domain means
You don't know what the GPL says
You don't care that they asked about public domain, you just felt like saying to use the GPL (or, worse, that's all you know)
The poster obviously knows what public domain means as he crafted a question specific to it.
A lot of open source licenses specifically allow reuse in a closed system. It doesn't guarantee that a company will show you how they did something. But, it means that as long as people have access to your code, it exists. If it ceases to exist, well, nobody else cared. If it's available for the rest of time, people must have found it useful.
The GPL is fundamentally not compatible with public domain in that someone else has to provide the source code once something is covered by the GPL. Public domain makes the knowledge public, and the application of it, is up to you.
While everything you say about the GPL is true, you've either intentionally chosen to disregard what the poster asked, or you simply don't know why someone would want to put code into the public domain and ensure it stayed there.
GPL software isn't evil, nor is public domain software, nor is BSD. All of the licenses have their own application. In this case, by putting glibc under a BSD license means that anybody is free to include that in their OS if they feel that will make it better. This includes FreeBSD, Linux, Oracle, and, yes, even Microsoft.
The whole point of public domain (or even BSD software) is that you feel the world is a better place with your software being free than without. If someone you don't like happens to write better software as a result (and not have to GPL their code), then that is life.
There's a whole range of licenses, and reasons why things are under those licenses. Sticking with only "use the GPL" limits you in that landscape.
Because as it stands now, Microsoft profits from selling to the clueless but Microsoft does not have to bear the cost of the problems they experience (or the costs of third parties who receive spam from their infected machines). That makes Microsoft little more than a sophisticated parasite.
Well, given that the marketing department trumped privacy and security, you're correct.
"As much as we don't like to, to a lot of people the computer is an appliance."
Those people happen to be wrong. I'd say the unending problems they experience from trying to treat it like an appliance is pretty strong evidence that it is not, in fact, a mere appliance.
Oh, I don't know. Apple has made a fair amount of money in selling one that they claim to be a lot closer to an appliance that you don't need to know the innards of in order to use it. I don't know it it's truly that easy to use or that much secure -- but the people I know with Macs are just as happy to not deal with most of the crap involved in running a Windows machine (and, several of those have Masters degrees in CS, so we're not talking about stupid people here). I've personally never gotten to play with OSX, so I can't speak to it.
I can see that as computers become ubiquitous, people will begin to see them as just that. Essentially like a TV -- they don't care how it works, as long as when they click the button it does what they expect.
I think if Microsoft would stop doing things like allowing marketing to be sure they can sell advertising instead of allowing browsing to be private and secure by default, we'd be making some progress.
Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible.
Oh, I wouldn't want to detract from what those people did. I attribute that largely to sheer tenacity and balls (and in some cases, a little bit of luck probably helped). I credit the people more so than the equipment.
However, the A-10 was built from the ground up to be an aircraft with maximum survivability. The 1200lb tub that encompasses the cockpit and three levels of redundancy in the flight controls.
Truthfully, I stand in awe of anybody who flies an aircraft into combat. It takes a big pair to do that.
So, why don't they mount the gun backwards? The pilot could aim through a rear facing camera.
Ummm... because the A-10 doesn't run away from trouble, it heads straight towards it and kills it. That's its job -- when it's shooting at you, it's coming straight for you.
It's built to do close air support, and crush anybody who is shooting at your people on the ground.
I suspect a rear-facing gun would significantly reduce it's 80% accuracy rate. This thing is literally built to be a tank buster.
Helicopters were not invented in the last 100 years, only made practical and viable. da Vinci is a well know example of an engineer who attempted to build helicopters.
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this: "They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s."
There's a fairly big gap between those two. I hardly think DaVinci ever got to the point he was worried about bird-strike.:-P
The recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN), which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each). While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour.
When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines... that's an impressive gun.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention in history class. It's well known that Leonardo de Caprio's wood-and-graphite-composite corkscrew blade helicopter-Transformers were in heavy use during the early 1700s, especially in New Brunswick, East Anglia, and Muscovy. If only they had survived the onslaught of the steam-powered Brazilian Aero-Bombardment Fleet, we'd have a better historical record of those unbelievable flying machines.
Oh, man. That would be an awesome steampunk novel.
A-10's have been documented to come home and land while they have gaping holes in most of the control surfaces, leaking hydraulic fluid,running on one engine, and god knows what else.
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of, and specifically built to protect the hell out of the pilot in that nearly indestructible tub.
And, it's got the scariest tank-busting gun on the planet.
That's hilarious. My favorite part is that he's getting charged for "carrying a dangerous weapon while under the influence" -- oh, sure, carry dangerous weapons all you want, but no drinking.
Hell, I didn't even think you could drink in Utah. Might that not lead to dancing or something?:-P
Actually I pretty much believe skynet ever becoming real would just play on the stock market, or more likely fix and run the entire market of not only stock, but food, war engines etc...
Wait... so... SkyNet would just displace the Illuminati and nobody would be the wiser?
Re:Wikipedia is the source?
on
UVB-76 Explained
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Actually the Wikipedia page clearly cites a geocities page as the "creditable source"... Not sure if that makes it better or worse.
No, it's brilliant fieldcraft!!!
By putting your information in the clear on geocities, nobody believes it. You don't even need to encode it or hide it. Everybody ignores it -- it's just discounted as a credible source.
Man, those Russians were brilliant at the spy game.:-P (Actually, from everything I understand, they actually were.)
Er. The last version of Windows that "ran everything" was XP. Just because the dialog comes up in Vista or 7 does NOT mean that the actual autorun application is being executed.
That is good to know. I had explicitly gone in and turned all of it off, but I still see Windows try to respond to the new device, never sure how much to trust it.
When you plug your iPad in, the "do nothing" is the X button in the corner. Nothing happens besides that dialog coming up. It would be nice if it offered iTunes in the list, though.
Actually, I just discovered that after Windows has seen the device, you can then separately go into the Auto Play of the control panel and then select "Do Nothing".
Autorun is completely evil. You're an idiot if you don't disable it as soon as you unbox your computer. That is all.
I can't even blame end users for that one.
Microsoft has consistently opted to ignore security in favor of ease of shooting yourself in the foot. I lay the blame squarely at their feet for deciding to essentially run anything that they encounter and hope that it isn't malicious.
As much as we don't like to, to a lot of people the computer is an appliance. They're just not fully aware of all of this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
We would have been better off with the Avro Arrow.
The artist's rendering is a picture of a flying car with a guy shooting out the door with a kind of "pchew, pchew" visual effect.
I wouldn't read anything about any actual technology from this. It's popular mechanics filling in a visual, I doubt very much that it's rooted in anything meaningful.
Heck, I doubt they'll be able to build a flying HMMV. Nobody has managed to create a flying car yet -- at least, not a viable one. This is DARPA asking for a pony -- who knows though, this time might be it.
If this finally gets us flying cars ... who cares? What could possibly go wrong?? :-P
(And, yes, I am aware that we may not actually want most people navigating in three dimensions)
Oh, so nothing at all like deprecating .NET then -- gotcha. :-P
Eh? Really?
This is actually the first I'm hearing of this (I'm not an active MS developer) -- are they deprecating the entire .NET? Or just a couple of parts of it?
I actually kind of liked a lot of the aspects of .NET when I was using it.
Horseshit.
If your answer to "how do you put something into the public domain, and ensure that it stays in the public domain" boils down to "use the GPL" then one of the following is true:
The poster obviously knows what public domain means as he crafted a question specific to it.
A lot of open source licenses specifically allow reuse in a closed system. It doesn't guarantee that a company will show you how they did something. But, it means that as long as people have access to your code, it exists. If it ceases to exist, well, nobody else cared. If it's available for the rest of time, people must have found it useful.
The GPL is fundamentally not compatible with public domain in that someone else has to provide the source code once something is covered by the GPL. Public domain makes the knowledge public, and the application of it, is up to you.
While everything you say about the GPL is true, you've either intentionally chosen to disregard what the poster asked, or you simply don't know why someone would want to put code into the public domain and ensure it stayed there.
GPL software isn't evil, nor is public domain software, nor is BSD. All of the licenses have their own application. In this case, by putting glibc under a BSD license means that anybody is free to include that in their OS if they feel that will make it better. This includes FreeBSD, Linux, Oracle, and, yes, even Microsoft.
The whole point of public domain (or even BSD software) is that you feel the world is a better place with your software being free than without. If someone you don't like happens to write better software as a result (and not have to GPL their code), then that is life.
There's a whole range of licenses, and reasons why things are under those licenses. Sticking with only "use the GPL" limits you in that landscape.
Well, given that the marketing department trumped privacy and security, you're correct.
Oh, I don't know. Apple has made a fair amount of money in selling one that they claim to be a lot closer to an appliance that you don't need to know the innards of in order to use it. I don't know it it's truly that easy to use or that much secure -- but the people I know with Macs are just as happy to not deal with most of the crap involved in running a Windows machine (and, several of those have Masters degrees in CS, so we're not talking about stupid people here). I've personally never gotten to play with OSX, so I can't speak to it.
I can see that as computers become ubiquitous, people will begin to see them as just that. Essentially like a TV -- they don't care how it works, as long as when they click the button it does what they expect.
I think if Microsoft would stop doing things like allowing marketing to be sure they can sell advertising instead of allowing browsing to be private and secure by default, we'd be making some progress.
Then I will defer to your knowledge on this point.
I've merely assumed the A-10 was using a lot more modern/better techniques. If the WWII planes were that rugged, I'm truly impressed.
Oh, I wouldn't want to detract from what those people did. I attribute that largely to sheer tenacity and balls (and in some cases, a little bit of luck probably helped). I credit the people more so than the equipment.
However, the A-10 was built from the ground up to be an aircraft with maximum survivability. The 1200lb tub that encompasses the cockpit and three levels of redundancy in the flight controls.
Truthfully, I stand in awe of anybody who flies an aircraft into combat. It takes a big pair to do that.
Ummm ... because the A-10 doesn't run away from trouble, it heads straight towards it and kills it. That's its job -- when it's shooting at you, it's coming straight for you.
It's built to do close air support, and crush anybody who is shooting at your people on the ground.
I suspect a rear-facing gun would significantly reduce it's 80% accuracy rate. This thing is literally built to be a tank buster.
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this: "They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s."
There's a fairly big gap between those two. I hardly think DaVinci ever got to the point he was worried about bird-strike. :-P
That's my understanding.
According to Wiki:
When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines ... that's an impressive gun.
Oh, man. That would be an awesome steampunk novel.
A-10's have been documented to come home and land while they have gaping holes in most of the control surfaces, leaking hydraulic fluid,running on one engine, and god knows what else.
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of, and specifically built to protect the hell out of the pilot in that nearly indestructible tub.
And, it's got the scariest tank-busting gun on the planet.
All in all, for me, the coolest aircraft ever.
WTF?? Do you mean the 70s? What have you been smoking?
Ah, but the A-10 doesn't need any protection -- it's like Chuck Norris.
Are you talking about this?
That's hilarious. My favorite part is that he's getting charged for "carrying a dangerous weapon while under the influence" -- oh, sure, carry dangerous weapons all you want, but no drinking.
Hell, I didn't even think you could drink in Utah. Might that not lead to dancing or something? :-P
Wait ... so ... SkyNet would just displace the Illuminati and nobody would be the wiser?
Borscht doesn't need to get any sexier!! :-P
No, it's brilliant fieldcraft!!!
By putting your information in the clear on geocities, nobody believes it. You don't even need to encode it or hide it. Everybody ignores it -- it's just discounted as a credible source.
Man, those Russians were brilliant at the spy game. :-P (Actually, from everything I understand, they actually were.)
Close. They're running SkyNyet. :-P
That is good to know. I had explicitly gone in and turned all of it off, but I still see Windows try to respond to the new device, never sure how much to trust it.
Actually, I just discovered that after Windows has seen the device, you can then separately go into the Auto Play of the control panel and then select "Do Nothing".
I can't even blame end users for that one.
Microsoft has consistently opted to ignore security in favor of ease of shooting yourself in the foot. I lay the blame squarely at their feet for deciding to essentially run anything that they encounter and hope that it isn't malicious.
As much as we don't like to, to a lot of people the computer is an appliance. They're just not fully aware of all of this stuff.
Right click and save from a web-page?
Sadly, some of the users have disabled UAC or simply say "Yes" whenever prompted because they don't fully understand what is being asked of them.
I fear that in some of these cases, users explicitly grant the virus escalated privileges.