That sounds logical. The only other reason I can see is that they are letting NK force the West into developing more advanced ICBM counter measure technologies because they are confident that they will then be able to steal it and thereby undermine the West's ICBM capabilities. Ask yourself what would Sun Tzu do?
Interesting thought and the US was/is (?) developing that tech with variing results and more for propaganda reasons against russia, which upset them on hillarious levels, even with the knowledge that they have enough firepower to overcome any of these systems.
Beside their wanna-be nuclear ordenance NK has also enough firepower at the DMZ that they can easily shell Seoul into ground zero with conventional weaponary which seems even more dangerous, because MAD (without the M in NKs case) is not really effectiv as they still can fire at billions of people even after the capital was nuked to the ground.
Probably the only acceptable answer to them firing an ICBM would be return fire by the 5 permanent members of the security council, with total annihilation of NK damn the consequences, because if one gets to fire it and nothing happens afterwards, others will try as well (looking at you India/Pakistan/Israel/Iran).
China already mentioned quite public that they don't like NK acting up, but in contrast to my statement above they also might not be in the position to intervene without a major incident and are now between a rock and a hard place:
- Keep that shitty dictator and send him enough money to keep his kingdom and hope that it destabilizes from inside and stays inside or - actively act against him and try to explain why half SK would look like the eastern french border after WWI
Would be interesting to see how Sun Tzu manages this one.
China will quite likely end them swiftly or "secure" their nuclear facilities, when they get something that resembles an operational ICBM, because even the slightest chance of this getting out of hand would hurt them the most in any aspect, regardless who is or isn't hit in the end.
As I posted below, it seems pretty obvious you would use fuel cells instead of batteries for an electric aircraft... from your energy density link compressed hydrogen has an even better energy density (142 MJ/kg) than jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)!
The cost of hydrogen production is estimated to become close to gasoline production over the next decade or so, but there is a huge pollution benefit to using fuel cells which could drive adoption quicker.
The currently very low cost of oil is probably the main thing that would keep airplanes from going electric soon.
It is still a complete mess in terms of storage, especially when cryogenic, and when you combine it with some carbon to make it easier to store we're back at methan (which also works in fuel cells) or some other kind of jet fuel.
I don't really see any use for pure hydogen systems, beside upper stages of rather short lived rockets (and even there they are developing methan based engines, because of the problems with pure hydrogen).
I am inclined to agree on synthesizing fuel, even if you just take atmospheric CO2 there is more than enough and there is a lot of well-built infrastracture to transfer carbon based fuels (pipelines etc.)
Would be interesting want kind of engines he aims for, but a lot of electricity in a jet could be an advantage as the russians tried to modify the airstream at hypersonic speed with ions beams.
Another problem with current hypersonic engines is the heated intake air, which might be used to create "fuel" while flying when using some kind of electric system.
Currently it seems far out, but so where precise self-landing booster stages a couple of years ago.
Your probably right, but all this wouldn't happen, if Microsoft would clearly (and hopefully auditable) state, what they actually transmit and how to stop it (in every version). Most of this FUD is allowed to spread, because everyone, with the exception of very large enterprise customers, is left in the dark. The stuff with retrofitting the invasive telemetry into 7/8/8.1 and pushing every private customer very hard to updates wasn't helpful either.
So for me personally this W7 machine will be the last with windows, running as long as somehow possible. I don't want cloud stuff (not working on 1 Mbps connections), I don't want telemetry I can't control or shut off and, last but not least, I still have no freaking idea on the future use of a W10 license (rebuild of maschine, failing parts, yadda yadda yadda).
The company I currently work for has the same problems on a smaller scale. Upper Management is still trying to figger out, how to cope with alll this, while our workforce grows ~20% per year.
There is a lot of cultural change, simply because people join you, who have worked in completly diffrent enviroments and not everyone likes to keep it startup-y, especially not in management.
I still can't understand, how test equipment gets fried by this, because they should be able to test the cable, even if its wires are wrong all the way.
But what can I say, we have test equipment for a bus used in building applications, should be able to withstand exposition to surges, should....
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds logical. The only other reason I can see is that they are letting NK force the West into developing more advanced ICBM counter measure technologies because they are confident that they will then be able to steal it and thereby undermine the West's ICBM capabilities. Ask yourself what would Sun Tzu do?
Interesting thought and the US was/is (?) developing that tech with variing results and more for propaganda reasons against russia, which upset them on hillarious levels, even with the knowledge that they have enough firepower to overcome any of these systems.
Beside their wanna-be nuclear ordenance NK has also enough firepower at the DMZ that they can easily shell Seoul into ground zero with conventional weaponary which seems even more dangerous, because MAD (without the M in NKs case) is not really effectiv as they still can fire at billions of people even after the capital was nuked to the ground.
Probably the only acceptable answer to them firing an ICBM would be return fire by the 5 permanent members of the security council, with total annihilation of NK damn the consequences, because if one gets to fire it and nothing happens afterwards, others will try as well (looking at you India/Pakistan/Israel/Iran).
China already mentioned quite public that they don't like NK acting up, but in contrast to my statement above they also might not be in the position to intervene without a major incident and are now between a rock and a hard place:
- Keep that shitty dictator and send him enough money to keep his kingdom and hope that it destabilizes from inside and stays inside or
- actively act against him and try to explain why half SK would look like the eastern french border after WWI
Would be interesting to see how Sun Tzu manages this one.
China will quite likely end them swiftly or "secure" their nuclear facilities, when they get something that resembles an operational ICBM, because even the slightest chance of this getting out of hand would hurt them the most in any aspect, regardless who is or isn't hit in the end.
As I posted below, it seems pretty obvious you would use fuel cells instead of batteries for an electric aircraft... from your energy density link compressed hydrogen has an even better energy density (142 MJ/kg) than jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)!
The cost of hydrogen production is estimated to become close to gasoline production over the next decade or so, but there is a huge pollution benefit to using fuel cells which could drive adoption quicker.
The currently very low cost of oil is probably the main thing that would keep airplanes from going electric soon.
It is still a complete mess in terms of storage, especially when cryogenic, and when you combine it with some carbon to make it easier to store we're back at methan (which also works in fuel cells) or some other kind of jet fuel.
I don't really see any use for pure hydogen systems, beside upper stages of rather short lived rockets (and even there they are developing methan based engines, because of the problems with pure hydrogen).
I am inclined to agree on synthesizing fuel, even if you just take atmospheric CO2 there is more than enough and there is a lot of well-built infrastracture to transfer carbon based fuels (pipelines etc.)
Would be interesting want kind of engines he aims for, but a lot of electricity in a jet could be an advantage as the russians tried to modify the airstream at hypersonic speed with ions beams.
Another problem with current hypersonic engines is the heated intake air, which might be used to create "fuel" while flying when using some kind of electric system.
Currently it seems far out, but so where precise self-landing booster stages a couple of years ago.
Your probably right, but all this wouldn't happen, if Microsoft would clearly (and hopefully auditable) state, what they actually transmit and how to stop it (in every version).
Most of this FUD is allowed to spread, because everyone, with the exception of very large enterprise customers, is left in the dark.
The stuff with retrofitting the invasive telemetry into 7/8/8.1 and pushing every private customer very hard to updates wasn't helpful either.
So for me personally this W7 machine will be the last with windows, running as long as somehow possible. I don't want cloud stuff (not working on 1 Mbps connections), I don't want telemetry I can't control or shut off and, last but not least, I still have no freaking idea on the future use of a W10 license (rebuild of maschine, failing parts, yadda yadda yadda).
The company I currently work for has the same problems on a smaller scale. Upper Management is still trying to figger out, how to cope with alll this, while our workforce grows ~20% per year.
There is a lot of cultural change, simply because people join you, who have worked in completly diffrent enviroments and not everyone likes to keep it startup-y, especially not in management.
I still can't understand, how test equipment gets fried by this, because they should be able to test the cable, even if its wires are wrong all the way. But what can I say, we have test equipment for a bus used in building applications, should be able to withstand exposition to surges, should....