It depends what you are doing with it - in the server space,.Net is used all over the place (Dynamics CRM, SharePoint, SQL Server, Exchange - all have a dependency on.Net these days).
Not really, because it junks the entire concept of limited authorisation within a corporation - if 'exceeds authorized access' doesn't apply when your authorisation is limited just because you are a legitimate employee of that company, then a significant portion of the point of limited authorisation is thrown out.
Your employees can attack from within with impunity.
I drive. I drive a lot. I just must be a better driver than you because I don't speed, and changing speed limits aren't a problem (I get down to the new limit well before I pass the sign). Driving a few mph under the posted limit hasn't caused me issues, ever.
Are you really suggesting most people are very bad drivers?
That depends on whether 100% of the company had been issued as shares privately prior to the IPO, or if there had been a pool reserved for later use - if the IPO comes out of an unused pool it doesn't have an effect on the shares already held.
It's interesting that you comment on the fact that kids can't be supervised 100% by their parents, and yet here we are discussing a story where essentially Apple is being expected to supervise the kid for the parent... 100% of the time.
Theres always cargo to be carried, plus the aircraft needs to be repositioned for the return flight anyway - some passengers are better than no passengers.
My iPad acts as a wonderful RDP client a lot of the time, and I'm guessing that any ARM based WinRT system is going to be used in the same way as an iPad most of the time...
Have to disagree, VS is head and shoulders above Eclipse in both niceness of use and ability. I've used Eclipse for a 4 month stretch and I really really despise it. VS is significantly better.
The B-1 was a cancelled project, which was reactivated and became the B-1B - which saw combat in Iraq in 1998 (it was in service for the first Gulf War, but was only capable of a nuclear role and thus was on nuclear deterrent duty for the duration).
The B-2 first saw combat in Kosovo in 1999, two years after it entered USAF service.
F-22 has no requirement to be deployed overseas, there are no jobs for it to do currently - why not run out the airframe time on older airframes rather than waste the more expensive air dominance aircraft...
Still not early enough to support the claim made in the parents post, but its worth noting that the B-17 entered service with the RAF in 1940, before the USA joined the war.
Unfortunately, your conclusion isn't all that correct - the B-2 was not designed for crew survivability, it was designed for mission survivability in that it was supposed to be a first strike weapon against the Soviet command and control structures. Whether that allowed the crews to return to base after striking their targets in the Soviet Union was a mere byproduct, because it was always assumed that the Soviets would get off enough ICBMs to still cause significant damage on US soil, including major military bases...
The survivability fact came as a happy bonus later on when the B-2s role was switched to a more conventional one during other conflicts.
I'm not sure why you think certain costs are included in one price and not in another - the Boeing 747-8 is a derivative of an already profitable aircraft line, one which had brand new tooling, manufacturing and a factory built just for it. The costs were there, just included in the Boeing 747-100 rather than the current derivative - Boeing doesn't get to charge the costs of the factory to the fairies and imps, they have to be borne by the commercial products just as much as the DoD have to bear the cost of the R&D for their projects.
Unless there is another piston-to-jet style sea change in airborne combat, I don't see why the B-52 wouldn't be used for its primary mission in the next 28 years.
After all, the C-130 is still being produced brand new, despite the basic design being only two years younger than the B-52!
Carrying X amount of bombs to target Y doesn't change much over the years - once suppression of the air defences is secured, it doesn't matter if you send in a Boeing 747 with a midget pushing Obama-For-2008! badges out a door, the risk is going to be the same.
All modern airforces play the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) game with a large amount of seriousness - the JSF will take over a large amount of that role when it eventually enters service (well, chances are the F-35B will be relegated to second day ops as its bring-back performance is derisory at best), but the B-1B is quite often tasked with it these days (a B-1B armed with a sniper pod is an awesome weapon).
The F-16 is used a lot in the wild weasel role these days as well.
The originally requested B-2 fleet size was well over a hundred, but it suffered large cuts due to the weakening state of the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s.
Thats where the $3Billion price point came in - a large programme to build a large fleet, cut down at the last minute to a small fleet which had to bear all the costs rather than having them amortized over a larger unit figure.
In security update 2012-001 there are 36 patched issues, almost all of which are labelled "may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information", including one TimeMachine issue where a remote attacker could gain access to backups...
Slashdot Mirror
It depends what you are doing with it - in the server space, .Net is used all over the place (Dynamics CRM, SharePoint, SQL Server, Exchange - all have a dependency on .Net these days).
Iran has a good stock of Maverick missiles, which could be mounted in place of Hellfires (mavericks are larger).
Not really, because it junks the entire concept of limited authorisation within a corporation - if 'exceeds authorized access' doesn't apply when your authorisation is limited just because you are a legitimate employee of that company, then a significant portion of the point of limited authorisation is thrown out.
Your employees can attack from within with impunity.
I drive. I drive a lot. I just must be a better driver than you because I don't speed, and changing speed limits aren't a problem (I get down to the new limit well before I pass the sign). Driving a few mph under the posted limit hasn't caused me issues, ever.
Are you really suggesting most people are very bad drivers?
You say it like there should be a problem with that...
Withdraw first party insurance from speeders, no issues with that at all.
That depends on whether 100% of the company had been issued as shares privately prior to the IPO, or if there had been a pool reserved for later use - if the IPO comes out of an unused pool it doesn't have an effect on the shares already held.
It's interesting that you comment on the fact that kids can't be supervised 100% by their parents, and yet here we are discussing a story where essentially Apple is being expected to supervise the kid for the parent... 100% of the time.
Theres always cargo to be carried, plus the aircraft needs to be repositioned for the return flight anyway - some passengers are better than no passengers.
My iPad acts as a wonderful RDP client a lot of the time, and I'm guessing that any ARM based WinRT system is going to be used in the same way as an iPad most of the time...
And Final Cut Pro X was released to huge fanfare and immediate loving acceptance by a huge, grateful customer base... Wasn't it?
Oh, wait... Apples done the whole "write the new one from scratch" and it didn't go down all that well, at least twice.
You don't need bad reading comprehension to come to the other conclusion, it's a poorly phased head line without the hyphen.
Have to disagree, VS is head and shoulders above Eclipse in both niceness of use and ability. I've used Eclipse for a 4 month stretch and I really really despise it. VS is significantly better.
Internal bandwidth usage doesn't count toward quotas used to balance backbone transfers etc...
Wow, lots of things wrong with your timeline...
The B-1 was a cancelled project, which was reactivated and became the B-1B - which saw combat in Iraq in 1998 (it was in service for the first Gulf War, but was only capable of a nuclear role and thus was on nuclear deterrent duty for the duration).
The B-2 first saw combat in Kosovo in 1999, two years after it entered USAF service.
F-22 has no requirement to be deployed overseas, there are no jobs for it to do currently - why not run out the airframe time on older airframes rather than waste the more expensive air dominance aircraft...
Still not early enough to support the claim made in the parents post, but its worth noting that the B-17 entered service with the RAF in 1940, before the USA joined the war.
The B-52 doesn't have fly-by-wire, and it still uses largely the same engines as it did in the 1970s...
Also, the B-2 was not no-bid, single source, there was a fairly significant competition between at least three parties for it, including Lockheed.
Unfortunately, your conclusion isn't all that correct - the B-2 was not designed for crew survivability, it was designed for mission survivability in that it was supposed to be a first strike weapon against the Soviet command and control structures. Whether that allowed the crews to return to base after striking their targets in the Soviet Union was a mere byproduct, because it was always assumed that the Soviets would get off enough ICBMs to still cause significant damage on US soil, including major military bases...
The survivability fact came as a happy bonus later on when the B-2s role was switched to a more conventional one during other conflicts.
I'm not sure why you think certain costs are included in one price and not in another - the Boeing 747-8 is a derivative of an already profitable aircraft line, one which had brand new tooling, manufacturing and a factory built just for it. The costs were there, just included in the Boeing 747-100 rather than the current derivative - Boeing doesn't get to charge the costs of the factory to the fairies and imps, they have to be borne by the commercial products just as much as the DoD have to bear the cost of the R&D for their projects.
Unless there is another piston-to-jet style sea change in airborne combat, I don't see why the B-52 wouldn't be used for its primary mission in the next 28 years.
After all, the C-130 is still being produced brand new, despite the basic design being only two years younger than the B-52!
Carrying X amount of bombs to target Y doesn't change much over the years - once suppression of the air defences is secured, it doesn't matter if you send in a Boeing 747 with a midget pushing Obama-For-2008! badges out a door, the risk is going to be the same.
How about 60 years of western freedom, which was guaranteed by things like this?
Its also worth noting that Boeing offered the USAF brand new "Model B" B-2s around 2005 for $350Million a pop...
Doesn't work like that - amortized costs work over the number of airframes delivered, not the number currently in service.
All modern airforces play the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) game with a large amount of seriousness - the JSF will take over a large amount of that role when it eventually enters service (well, chances are the F-35B will be relegated to second day ops as its bring-back performance is derisory at best), but the B-1B is quite often tasked with it these days (a B-1B armed with a sniper pod is an awesome weapon).
The F-16 is used a lot in the wild weasel role these days as well.
The originally requested B-2 fleet size was well over a hundred, but it suffered large cuts due to the weakening state of the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s.
Thats where the $3Billion price point came in - a large programme to build a large fleet, cut down at the last minute to a small fleet which had to bear all the costs rather than having them amortized over a larger unit figure.
Really, they don't need a wake up call?
In security update 2012-001 there are 36 patched issues, almost all of which are labelled "may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information", including one TimeMachine issue where a remote attacker could gain access to backups...
And I'm a Mac user and Apple liker!