So go out and vote for somebody sane instead of that Hollings guy!! Me, not living in the States, cant' do much except urging you people who _can_ do something to do it. Democracy in action means that you have to let the responsible parties (Hollings in this case) take the consequences of his actions. If you don't like an elected representative then make sure he doesn't get re-elected. Outside armed rebellion and sheer terrorism that's the only way. I'm pretty sure that Hollings couldn't care less about ouraged postings to Slashdot but he will care about his senatorial position. There must be a US equivalent of the Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. Make sure that that person gets elected instead!! All I can do is to get my representatives in the EU to take action. Now do your stuff.
It's easy building a real rng. I once built one out of a geiger counter, a smoke detector and a sun station. A client needed a truly random rng and I taped the radioactive element to the geiger counter, plugged it into the serial port of the sun and measured the times between two events.
Other sources of randomness could be the sun or the discharge of capacitor.
The F-117 is designed to minimize IR signature as well as radar. Subsonic means that skin temperature aren't all that much above ambient. The exhaust itself is very wide, mixing in cold air with the hot, lowering the exhaust signature.
However, open bay doors will show up very well on radar. Also, when you get close enough to the radar transmitter you get a kind of resonance in the aircraft structure that you can't hide.
As an ex-pro (I used to work for the National Defense Research Establishment, Guided Weapons Division here in Sweden) I would like to comment some of the things Jon says.
The massive bombing of Germany didn't shorten the war or force the Germans to end it.
The above statement isn't simply unproved by Jon, it is also unprovable. We do know that the Germans had a very severe fuel shortage (one of the reasons the Ardennes offensive stopped) because of the bombing of German fuel factories. The shooting-up of the German rail network almost stopped production in the Ruhr area. The Ruhr needed something on the order of several thousand rail cars of coal each day. Denied them it just couldn't produce warmaterial. I would say that it is upon Jon to show that the bombing of Germany had no effect. I grant him that the massbombing of the cities had no effect beyond (possibly) strengthening morale.
Israel and Great Britain have for years had the technological means to destroy their political adversaries in the Middle East and Ireland, but their superior technology haven't worked.
Um, exactly how can the Britts destroy the IRA through technology? By nuking North Ireland? The israelis don't want to pay the political price.
Saddam Hussein has survived several Techno-Wars, emerging even stronger and more enrenched than he was before. He was pushed out of Kuwait not by a Techno-war, but by a pretty conventional one, in which troops and tanks lined up in the desert to push him back to Iraq.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, the war against was a conventional one, but you don't seem to grasp that the difference is not clear cut. Without the air attacks the ground troops would have had a much tougher job. You also fail to see that the ground troops got some pretty good techno-wizardry on their own. Without GPS the ground campaign would have been radically different. Night-vision equipment on the tanks meant that the Iraqies were engaged in combat before they even knew anybody was out there. Artillery was deployed to firing positions from marching and back again in 10 minutes. There are countless other examples and they all demand advanced technology to work (and extensive training).
Put another way, Techno-Wars don't work unless the technology is unleashed to its devastating limits
I would say that you're wrong. Techno-wars work if the thechnology is applied to what it was designed for. The war against Iraq, I submit, was a successful techno war. The hi-tech equipment used was designed to be used against Soviet armoured forces on the german plain. It worked just as well in the desert. The problem lies not with the technology. The technology works, barring accidents, I agree there. There is no such thing as a bloodless war. The missiles hit their targets, the bombs theirs and so on. That's what they are designed for. The problem is, we have no idea what we should do once the bombing stops.
Slashdot Mirror
So go out and vote for somebody sane instead of that Hollings guy!!
Me, not living in the States, cant' do much except urging you people who _can_ do something to do it. Democracy in action means that you have to let the responsible parties (Hollings in this case) take the consequences of his actions. If you don't like an elected representative then make sure he doesn't get re-elected. Outside armed rebellion and sheer terrorism that's the only way. I'm pretty sure that Hollings couldn't care less about ouraged postings to Slashdot but he will care about his senatorial position.
There must be a US equivalent of the Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. Make sure that that person gets elected instead!!
All I can do is to get my representatives in the EU to take action. Now do your stuff.
It's easy building a real rng. I once built one out of a geiger counter, a smoke detector and a sun station. A client needed a truly random rng and I taped the radioactive element to the geiger counter, plugged it into the serial port of the sun and measured the times between two events.
Other sources of randomness could be the sun or the discharge of capacitor.
cheers
But servlets are already persistant. I do wonder if the potential speedup in going from interpreted to compiled is worth it.
The F-117 is designed to minimize IR signature as well as radar. Subsonic means that skin temperature aren't all that much above ambient. The exhaust itself is very wide, mixing in cold air with the hot, lowering the exhaust signature.
However, open bay doors will show up very well on radar. Also, when you get close enough to the radar transmitter you get a kind of resonance in the aircraft structure that you can't hide.
As an ex-pro (I used to work for the National Defense Research Establishment, Guided Weapons Division here in Sweden) I would like to comment some of the things Jon says.
The massive bombing of Germany didn't shorten the war or force the Germans to end it.
The above statement isn't simply unproved by Jon, it is also unprovable. We do know that the Germans had a very severe fuel shortage (one of the reasons the Ardennes offensive stopped) because of the bombing of German fuel factories.
The shooting-up of the German rail network almost stopped production in the Ruhr area. The Ruhr needed something on the order of several thousand rail cars of coal each day. Denied them it just couldn't produce warmaterial. I would say that it is upon Jon to show that the bombing of Germany had no effect. I grant him that the massbombing of the cities had no effect beyond (possibly) strengthening morale.
Israel and
Great Britain have for years had the technological means to destroy their political
adversaries in the Middle East and Ireland, but their superior technology haven't worked.
Um, exactly how can the Britts destroy the IRA through technology? By nuking North Ireland?
The israelis don't want to pay the political price.
Saddam Hussein has survived several Techno-Wars, emerging even stronger and more enrenched
than he was before. He was pushed out of Kuwait not by a Techno-war, but by a pretty
conventional one, in which troops and tanks lined up in the desert to push him back to Iraq.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, the war against was a conventional one, but you don't seem to grasp that the difference is not clear cut. Without the air attacks the ground troops would have had a much tougher job.
You also fail to see that the ground troops got some pretty good techno-wizardry on their own. Without GPS the ground campaign would have been radically different. Night-vision equipment on the tanks meant that the Iraqies were engaged in combat before they even knew anybody was out there. Artillery was deployed to firing positions from marching and back again in 10 minutes. There are countless other examples and they all demand advanced technology to work (and extensive training).
Put another way, Techno-Wars don't work unless the technology is unleashed to its devastating
limits
I would say that you're wrong. Techno-wars work if the thechnology is applied to what it was designed for. The war against Iraq, I submit, was a successful techno war. The hi-tech equipment used was designed to be used against Soviet armoured forces on the german plain. It worked just as well in the desert. The problem lies not with the technology. The technology works, barring accidents, I agree there. There is no such thing as a bloodless war. The missiles hit their targets, the bombs theirs and so on. That's what they are designed for. The problem is, we have no idea what we should do once the bombing stops.