Actually, MiG officially stands for Moscow Industries Group now, after the formation of MAPO (Moscow Air Power Organization) consortium in the 90s IIRC. Kind of like how Aeroflot changed its name to Russian National Airlines. It's a shame to see those companies switch to such bland names... the rise of marketing has become apparent now after the rise of capitalism in Russia.
"The only problem is that airplanes fly too fast for people to get a good view of what's going on in terms of ground traffic.
Enter the cruise missile. Fly ten of them around, snapping pictures and shooting video clips and periodically dumping the footage back via 802.11b networks on the ground. Near-instant gratification, and without putting your staff at risk."
Exit the cruise missile, because it travels "too fast for people to get a good view of what's going on", the same as an airplane, and likewise would be totally unsuitable for low altitude, highly obstructed city flight. Any small rocket powered aircraft would have the same problem, and considering the burn times of rocket engines today, would have to refuel after about 15 seconds.
Enter the unmanned rotorcraft, like the Sikorsky Cypher, the EADS Seamos, the Bell Eagle Eye (tilt rotor!), Northrop RQ-8 FIre Scout, Canadair CL-227, Yamaha RMAX, and no doubt others. They don't risk any lives, and have all the flexibility that comes with helicopters (and in the case of the Eagle Eye, the speed of a fixed wing aircraft). They can hover to monitor a developing situation, and fly in any direction to avoid obstacles. Find me a cruise missile that can do that.
"That would be "Gurevitch", not "Gureevitch", of course."
They're both transliterations of a word that does not naturally exist in English. Correcting it is sort of like correcting the spelling of the sound of a scream- "ahhhh" or "auurrghh"? There really isn't any absolutely correct way.
Any game based on the war in Iraq with any semblance of realism would be too easy to be fun for the American side. Bombing Baghdad with only scattered AAA and no air opposition? That'd be no fun.
It's Pentium 4, not Pentium "IV". God, you guys are fucking idiots.
Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today
on
Nuke-Lobbing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Lofting is a standard maneuver, and it is not restricted to just nuclear weapons. It's used whenever the pilot wants to add some sort of stand-off capability to a non-stand-off weapon, and requires only that the aircraft have a CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bombing mode (which includes all current U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft). Again, it has nothing to do specifically with nukes.
Here's how it's done; the pilot waits until the horizontal line on the CCRP vertical line blinks, indicating he's within maximum range. Then he increases pitch to 45 degrees and pushes the throttle to mil or afterburner if he's got the fuel. He then holds down the pickle, and the bombing computer releases the bomb once it detects that his aircraft is in a correct firing solution for a successful loft.
Very large? How many people do you know who can afford 15k for a round trip flight? The Concorde does not fill the niche of fast, long distance flights at all, since so few can actually afford it.
Actually, a clean F-14D (as well as other current aircraft) are capable of mild supercruise (~1.1 Mach). Also, with the F119-PW-100's made somewhat of a trade-off to get that supercruise ability; the very low bypass ratio greatly reduces the thrust produced by the afterburner, which reduces effective top speed (which isn't as important as sustained speed).
Actually, a digital FLCS (flight control system) only prevents the pilot from making attitude changes that would result in aerodynamically unstable flight. If the pilot were to pitch the aircraft forward (and flew it until it headed into the ground), nothing would stop him, as the FLCS is not intended to stop such manuevers.
The FLCS is not some magical AI protecting the aircraft from the pilot, only a way to (basically) smooth out the controls to the pilot.
Bullet time actually had heavy amounts of post-processing done on computers in order to make it look smooth in the first Matrix. In one of the effects documentaries, they show it "raw", and it looks very choppy, far worse than with the CG frames generated to smooth it out.
The problem I see with linux distros today is all are either attempting to please computer newbies or linux pros. In order to increase linux's market penetration, they need to try to appeal to the user who not only knows about linux but also is willing to try linux (which excludes almost every general Windows user out there). It's pointless to try to appeal to a guy who's only moderately acquainted with Windows or computers in general; that person will either not know about Linux or will not be ready for another, more complex, OS.
Drop the cheesy explanations of what a "window" and "cursor" are, and make a Linux distro for the "pro" Windows users who might actually give Linux a chance.
Puzzled by the different 3.2 releases? Here's an excerpt from the changelog...
* V3.2-2003-03-23 (Experimental release) - KDE 3.1.1 from Debian/unstable - XFree 4.3 - Language bugfixes for english version - Autosetup and online-help updates for OpenOffice - ptrace security fix for kernel 2.4.20 - Blackdown Java-RE 1.4.1 update
* V3.2-2003-02-26a (CeBit edition) - Lots of updates and bugfixes - KDE 3.1 from ktown.kde.org/~nolden/ (woody port) - removed desktop=gnome option until a working gnome configuration is available - added home=device and myconfig=device (alternate: home=scan myconfig=scan)
bootoption for persistent homedir and persistent configuration - evolution 1.2.1 - removed some older games and packages to gain space - openoffice 1.0.2 (german and english)
* V3.1-2003-01-20 (Update) - Lots of updates and bugfixes (thanks to Oliver Diedrich and the c't team
for testing and reports) - Fixed checkroot.sh script (add correct / entry after HD install) - isdn-config: Better support for non-hisax ISDN cards - More KDE menu reordering - sitar update
Full changelog at ftp://ftp.webtrek.com/pub/mirrors/knoppix/KNOPPIX- CHANGELOG.txt
"Yes, their Windows design workstation can crash much faster when it runs in to Registry/IRQ errors. It can also choke much faster when too many VM pages are thrown at it (i.e. large Photoshop documents)."
I have been working with large (2048x2048 and 4096x4096 with several to tens of layers) Photoshop documents often in Windows XP with 384 ram, and have not yet experienced any crashes or errors. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, MiG officially stands for Moscow Industries Group now, after the formation of MAPO (Moscow Air Power Organization) consortium in the 90s IIRC. Kind of like how Aeroflot changed its name to Russian National Airlines. It's a shame to see those companies switch to such bland names... the rise of marketing has become apparent now after the rise of capitalism in Russia.
Current models of the Tomahawk cost about $500,000 actually. And of course the Tomahawk can do a whole lot more than this $5,000 "cruise missile".
"The only problem is that airplanes fly too fast for people to get a good view of what's going on in terms of ground traffic.
Enter the cruise missile. Fly ten of them around, snapping pictures and shooting video clips and periodically dumping the footage back via 802.11b networks on the ground. Near-instant gratification, and without putting your staff at risk."
Exit the cruise missile, because it travels "too fast for people to get a good view of what's going on", the same as an airplane, and likewise would be totally unsuitable for low altitude, highly obstructed city flight. Any small rocket powered aircraft would have the same problem, and considering the burn times of rocket engines today, would have to refuel after about 15 seconds.
Enter the unmanned rotorcraft, like the Sikorsky Cypher, the EADS Seamos, the Bell Eagle Eye (tilt rotor!), Northrop RQ-8 FIre Scout, Canadair CL-227, Yamaha RMAX, and no doubt others. They don't risk any lives, and have all the flexibility that comes with helicopters (and in the case of the Eagle Eye, the speed of a fixed wing aircraft). They can hover to monitor a developing situation, and fly in any direction to avoid obstacles. Find me a cruise missile that can do that.
"That would be "Gurevitch", not "Gureevitch", of course."
They're both transliterations of a word that does not naturally exist in English. Correcting it is sort of like correcting the spelling of the sound of a scream- "ahhhh" or "auurrghh"? There really isn't any absolutely correct way.
Any game based on the war in Iraq with any semblance of realism would be too easy to be fun for the American side. Bombing Baghdad with only scattered AAA and no air opposition? That'd be no fun.
What about a repressive protein, which blocks the operating cells?
Actually, in the U.S. the death rate for AIDS in 1999 was 8%. The global death rate of AIDS so far is about 30% (according to NOVA).
Here's hoping that they get the Osprey modelled accurately this time... with the chin turret and bay door in the rear.
It's Pentium 4, not Pentium "IV". God, you guys are fucking idiots.
Lofting is a standard maneuver, and it is not restricted to just nuclear weapons. It's used whenever the pilot wants to add some sort of stand-off capability to a non-stand-off weapon, and requires only that the aircraft have a CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bombing mode (which includes all current U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft). Again, it has nothing to do specifically with nukes.
Here's how it's done; the pilot waits until the horizontal line on the CCRP vertical line blinks, indicating he's within maximum range. Then he increases pitch to 45 degrees and pushes the throttle to mil or afterburner if he's got the fuel. He then holds down the pickle, and the bombing computer releases the bomb once it detects that his aircraft is in a correct firing solution for a successful loft.
The SR-71 wasn't all about speed as well. First to use a chine line and canted fins for reduced RCS (radar cross section).
Some perks of Concorde flight that I've heard of:
-complimentary caviar and wine
-windows are warm to the touch during supersonic flight
-sit next to celebrities
Oh come on. The flashpoint of the JP-7 used by the Blackbird is so high that it'd douse a match.
"a very large, very important niche"
Very large? How many people do you know who can afford 15k for a round trip flight? The Concorde does not fill the niche of fast, long distance flights at all, since so few can actually afford it.
Actually, a clean F-14D (as well as other current aircraft) are capable of mild supercruise (~1.1 Mach). Also, with the F119-PW-100's made somewhat of a trade-off to get that supercruise ability; the very low bypass ratio greatly reduces the thrust produced by the afterburner, which reduces effective top speed (which isn't as important as sustained speed).
Watch that supercruise disappear once you load external stores though. And what does the Typhoon sc at? Mach 1.2? The F/A-22 has demonstrated 1.54M.
Well there is the BA609. Tiltrotor, like the Osprey.
Actually, a digital FLCS (flight control system) only prevents the pilot from making attitude changes that would result in aerodynamically unstable flight. If the pilot were to pitch the aircraft forward (and flew it until it headed into the ground), nothing would stop him, as the FLCS is not intended to stop such manuevers.
The FLCS is not some magical AI protecting the aircraft from the pilot, only a way to (basically) smooth out the controls to the pilot.
Boeing does not have an alternative ready for production. The Sonic Cruiser project was terminated a while ago.
Bullet time actually had heavy amounts of post-processing done on computers in order to make it look smooth in the first Matrix. In one of the effects documentaries, they show it "raw", and it looks very choppy, far worse than with the CG frames generated to smooth it out.
The problem I see with linux distros today is all are either attempting to please computer newbies or linux pros. In order to increase linux's market penetration, they need to try to appeal to the user who not only knows about linux but also is willing to try linux (which excludes almost every general Windows user out there). It's pointless to try to appeal to a guy who's only moderately acquainted with Windows or computers in general; that person will either not know about Linux or will not be ready for another, more complex, OS.
Drop the cheesy explanations of what a "window" and "cursor" are, and make a Linux distro for the "pro" Windows users who might actually give Linux a chance.
Full changelog at ftp://ftp.webtrek.com/pub/mirrors/knoppix/KNOPPIX
Honesty could only be considered a "problem" in marketing...
JPEG2000 on average provides only a small compression efficiency increase (~10%) over standard JPEG.
"Yes, their Windows design workstation can crash much faster when it runs in to Registry/IRQ errors. It can also choke much faster when too many VM pages are thrown at it (i.e. large Photoshop documents)."
I have been working with large (2048x2048 and 4096x4096 with several to tens of layers) Photoshop documents often in Windows XP with 384 ram, and have not yet experienced any crashes or errors. YMMV.