For places with high-density population such as Manhattan, generating locally isn't feasible for now, and won't be for a long time to come. Improving the grid here is worthwhile.
AFAIK, that hasn't been the case for a while now. The MiG-29 and Su-27 use digital computers (which are unlikely to be tube-based). You may be thinking of the MiG-25, a 1960s design that famously used tube electronics at a time Western aircraft had started to use semiconductors instead.
There is an example of systems failure causing the loss of a ship - although I do not believe Microsoft was at fault. (I'll blame them anyway, to be consistent.) That example was HMS Sheffield, in the Falkland's War, which was hit by an exocet missile despite having the ability to shoot them down. The point defense systems were confused by too many objects on the RADAR.
It's more complex than that. - Sheffield's radar was the old Type 965, which wasn't very good at detecting seaskimming missiles. The RN was in the process of replacing it with a new system, but Sheffield hadn't been upgraded yet. - Sheffield's alert status at the time is unclear:
One history of the Falklands war says that as there were no "bogeys" on any radar screens at the time, the officers were making a satellite phone call back to Fleet HQ in England, an action that would jam the use of the ship radar. However, with other ships close by, notably the Carrier Invincible, this was not seen to be a risk. At the end of the call, reported the Guardian newspaper, the radar came back on and the two Etenards were spotted just 33km away. It was the Navy's first encounter with low-flying Exocet-carrying attack planes.
Another history says that the Sheffield's crew were "only in second-degree readiness rather than at full action-stations". The first the crew heard was a loudspeaker warning "Missile Attack - hit the deck". It reportedly took four minutes to close a ship down into battle stations and to be ready to take evasive action. The Sheffield had little more than a minute to react.
- Sheffield did not have point defence systems. Its armament consisted of Sea Dart (designed to attack high-flying aircraft) and a 4.5" gun, both considered long-range systems. Later in the war, the RN tried the "missile trap": a Type 42 would operate in conjunction with a Type 22 frigate, which carried the Sea Wolf short-range missile system which was designed for use against low-flying targets such as the Exocet.
So, Sheffield was not lost to systems failure but to incorrect procedure and a lack of foresight.
Did she use a name that identifies her as someone else (ie identity theft, whether or not that someone else had a account on MySpace) or an obviously unreal name?
i.e., explosives in the hands of non-experts, instead? It boggles the mind that in this safety-obsessed world it's still possible to randomly spray your general vicinity with things that go BOOM. In my observation, the kind of people who buy fireworks are often the ones who can't be trusted to be responsible with them. There's something about fireworks that turns normal people into pyromaniacs.
When Seattle Pi recently asked Gates about the email, he replied, "There's not a day that I don't send a piece of e-mail... like that piece of e-mail. That's my job." The founder, then-CEO and General Chief LordofitAll fires off irate messages on a daily basis, but the whole company steadfastly ignores him and continues to crank out crap? Maybe the competent MS employees have long ago committed harakiri in shame, and whoever's left Just Don't Care...
Slashdot does.. what? 40 mbit of traffic at peak? Wikipedia is roughly 100 times larger. Apples and oranges. The question is not 'how much traffic do the/. servers handle' but 'how much (peak) traffic on Wikipedia is generated by/. users'.
That only works for fabric-covered trailers. Shipping containers (which would be more common for bulk shipment of manufactured goods) are opaque to RFID.
There are a few more problems to solve. Commercial vessels are run on a lowest-possible cost basis, unlike e.g. Navy vessels. Commercial crew are typically a hodgepodge of third-world laborers plus a few Western officers, plus the ship is registered in the country with the lowest (cheapest) safety standards. Nuclear engineers are a lot more expensive than your average grease monkey, so in addition to the hugely expensive reactor, you've got extra cost in running the ship. There's no suitable reactor design available, much less one that can be mass-produced. A large initial investment would be required. Also, nuclear power requires a mindset that's completely alien to commercial ship operators. The only way I see this working is using a 'merchant marine' construction, with crews that have a naval background, i.e. see these ships as a strategic asset rather than a purely commercial operation. That also helps with the piracy problem.
It adds an ending to the 1970s photo that would have best been left unwritten, allowing each viewer of the 1970's photo to make their own judgement of history. Rubbish. History has been written, photo or no photo. The facts of the past 38 years haven't been altered by taking this photo in any way, nor will this photo change anyone's judgement of history.
You can argue that the photo's pointless, but suggesting that people would be better served by not having this information is ridiculous. This isn't some pretentious open-ended novel we're talking about.
So at least Nokia gets it. Question is, why doesn't everybody else? The design of a mobile phone (or any complex gadget for that matter) should START with studies in HCI. All too often gadgets end up being a maze of features stacked haphazardly together, with no thought on ease of use whatsoever.
Imagine, for example, if the US found itself at war with most of the rest of the world Then they'd retreat and concentrate on defending the US. With an ocean between them and any attacker, they can sit back and watch while the US Navy (currently not only the strongest naval force in the world, but more numerous than IIRC any combination of 24 countries) sinks incoming fleets at its leisure. The only points where it's remotely vulnerable are the Mexican border and the Bering Strait. Even a sudden and complete defeat of the US forces in Iraq wouldn't impact the US ability to defend itself very much.
Attacking? For an attack to be meaningful, you'd have to invade the US and seize US oil fields. I can't see that succeeding for any nation or even continent-sized combination of countries. The US military would decimate any force before it got even close. The only recourse countries would have is terrorism, which would only serve to annoy the US. We've all seen the result of that.
When TFA says "slow", it's talking about 5 minutes, not 5 seconds. IDK why the update time is this slow, since 5 seconds is feasible even for a long-range radar (ie. 400 km).
because it suggests they'll use some new radar technology to replace doppler radar. In fact, they'll just install lots more radars (which can be cheap, short-range items) to improve coverage. According to the CASA site, they'll use modified marine navigation radars, ie the cheapest type of radar available, and these invariably are doppler radars.
Slashdot Mirror
For places with high-density population such as Manhattan, generating locally isn't feasible for now, and won't be for a long time to come. Improving the grid here is worthwhile.
No wonder MiGs still use vacuum tubes.
AFAIK, that hasn't been the case for a while now. The MiG-29 and Su-27 use digital computers (which are unlikely to be tube-based). You may be thinking of the MiG-25, a 1960s design that famously used tube electronics at a time Western aircraft had started to use semiconductors instead.
There is an example of systems failure causing the loss of a ship - although I do not believe Microsoft was at fault. (I'll blame them anyway, to be consistent.) That example was HMS Sheffield, in the Falkland's War, which was hit by an exocet missile despite having the ability to shoot them down. The point defense systems were confused by too many objects on the RADAR.
It's more complex than that.
- Sheffield's radar was the old Type 965, which wasn't very good at detecting seaskimming missiles. The RN was in the process of replacing it with a new system, but Sheffield hadn't been upgraded yet.
- Sheffield's alert status at the time is unclear:
One history of the Falklands war says that as there were no "bogeys" on any radar screens at the time, the officers were making a satellite phone call back to Fleet HQ in England, an action that would jam the use of the ship radar. However, with other ships close by, notably the Carrier Invincible, this was not seen to be a risk. At the end of the call, reported the Guardian newspaper, the radar came back on and the two Etenards were spotted just 33km away. It was the Navy's first encounter with low-flying Exocet-carrying attack planes.
Another history says that the Sheffield's crew were "only in second-degree readiness rather than at full action-stations". The first the crew heard was a loudspeaker warning "Missile Attack - hit the deck". It reportedly took four minutes to close a ship down into battle stations and to be ready to take evasive action. The Sheffield had little more than a minute to react.
(from here)
- Sheffield did not have point defence systems. Its armament consisted of Sea Dart (designed to attack high-flying aircraft) and a 4.5" gun, both considered long-range systems.
Later in the war, the RN tried the "missile trap": a Type 42 would operate in conjunction with a Type 22 frigate, which carried the Sea Wolf short-range missile system which was designed for use against low-flying targets such as the Exocet.
So, Sheffield was not lost to systems failure but to incorrect procedure and a lack of foresight.
Somebody set up us the spam!
Did she use a name that identifies her as someone else (ie identity theft, whether or not that someone else had a account on MySpace) or an obviously unreal name?
TFS doesn't say and TFA is slashdotted.
i.e., explosives in the hands of non-experts, instead? It boggles the mind that in this safety-obsessed world it's still possible to randomly spray your general vicinity with things that go BOOM. In my observation, the kind of people who buy fireworks are often the ones who can't be trusted to be responsible with them. There's something about fireworks that turns normal people into pyromaniacs.
AFAICT, Blackswift doesn't exist yet, so no. It's probably related, though.
Next you're going to tell us that the earth-shattering kaboom was what made the dinosaurs go extinct.
At the end of the piece, it says,
When Seattle Pi recently asked Gates about the email, he replied, "There's not a day that I don't send a piece of e-mailMaybe the competent MS employees have long ago committed harakiri in shame, and whoever's left Just Don't Care...
That only works for fabric-covered trailers. Shipping containers (which would be more common for bulk shipment of manufactured goods) are opaque to RFID.
There are a few more problems to solve. Commercial vessels are run on a lowest-possible cost basis, unlike e.g. Navy vessels. Commercial crew are typically a hodgepodge of third-world laborers plus a few Western officers, plus the ship is registered in the country with the lowest (cheapest) safety standards.
Nuclear engineers are a lot more expensive than your average grease monkey, so in addition to the hugely expensive reactor, you've got extra cost in running the ship.
There's no suitable reactor design available, much less one that can be mass-produced. A large initial investment would be required.
Also, nuclear power requires a mindset that's completely alien to commercial ship operators. The only way I see this working is using a 'merchant marine' construction, with crews that have a naval background, i.e. see these ships as a strategic asset rather than a purely commercial operation. That also helps with the piracy problem.
Actually, ships can be a bit more efficient . Depends on ship size, of course, and the availability of waterways vs. rails.
You can argue that the photo's pointless, but suggesting that people would be better served by not having this information is ridiculous. This isn't some pretentious open-ended novel we're talking about.
So at least Nokia gets it. Question is, why doesn't everybody else? The design of a mobile phone (or any complex gadget for that matter) should START with studies in HCI. All too often gadgets end up being a maze of features stacked haphazardly together, with no thought on ease of use whatsoever.
Dr. Who is a documentary now? Thanks, the world makes so much more sense that way.
Even a sudden and complete defeat of the US forces in Iraq wouldn't impact the US ability to defend itself very much.
Attacking? For an attack to be meaningful, you'd have to invade the US and seize US oil fields. I can't see that succeeding for any nation or even continent-sized combination of countries. The US military would decimate any force before it got even close.
The only recourse countries would have is terrorism, which would only serve to annoy the US. We've all seen the result of that.
That's why it's called "doppler": they detect the frequency shift in the "mooooooo"...
Interesting. Military radars usually do 3D scans by transmitting several beams at different elevations. Faster, but more expensive.
When TFA says "slow", it's talking about 5 minutes, not 5 seconds. IDK why the update time is this slow, since 5 seconds is feasible even for a long-range radar (ie. 400 km).
because it suggests they'll use some new radar technology to replace doppler radar. In fact, they'll just install lots more radars (which can be cheap, short-range items) to improve coverage. According to the CASA site, they'll use modified marine navigation radars, ie the cheapest type of radar available, and these invariably are doppler radars.
I think it's mostly a matter of the journalist misunderstanding the reasons for saving power in a datacenter.
I assumed A4, so 21x29.7 cm. At 80 g/m^2 that's 4008.3 pages.
Doing the math, it's about 4000 sheets of A4. That's a whole lot of paper to wade through, especially if it's in legalese rather than English.