Your grammar stinks, and makes your post unintelligible. By your handle I can't tell whether you're stupid or English isn't your native tongue (or both).
number of tracks, head design, and the circuitry that goes with it
That's exactly what I was thinking when I referred to long-gone manufacturers. Otherwise, you could toss them on "modern" IBM 9-track drives and pull the data onto modern media for decipherment.
I'm old enough to remember peaceniks, the FAS, etc, whining and moaning that the turbine engine would fail within a few miles in a real war because it hadn't been tested enough under harsh conditions.
I wouldn't use the word "operational" to describe a system that has yet to be used successfully in actual conflict and which has only been tested a handful of times.
So the M-1 Abrams tank didn't become "operational" until Desert Storm?
I never claimed that India wanted to use nuclear weapons against US naval targets.
Sorry.
The rest is just physics.
Which I think reinforces my notion that we *can* intercept ICBMs, since we *can* intercept IRBMs. The US has had anti-ICBM kinetic energy warheads in operational status since 2006. They're in Alaska, within range of DPRK, Russian and PRC missiles, but practical only against DPRK single-warhead rockets. (Soviet ABMs were nuclear tipped. The current Russian version still uses nukes.)
You're still under the delusion that India somehow is targeting (or wants to target) their nukes at us to defend against our navy, which is so absurd as to call all your technical assumptions into question.
They might maneuver to be harder to hit, or they might have other countermeasures, or they might perform a terminal burn to increase their velocity even further
You're 50 years behind the curve: the AS-4 "Kitchen" was designed in the 1950s and put into service 51 years ago had a terminal dive of Mach 4.6.
Maneuvering countermeasures at those speeds are really difficult, because the tiny wings on the missiles are designed only to keep them stable.
Note that the main purpose of the combo of F-14 fighter, AN/AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles was to shoot down Kitchen and Kelt-carrying Sov bombers before they could launch their missiles.
(There was a time when all/. readers knew this...)
Slashdot Mirror
Why do AMD CPUs need a custom kernel? GNU/Linux and Windows don't do that.
Since Apple only sells systems with Intel CPUs, I'm kinda baffled by this one.
Your grammar stinks, and makes your post unintelligible. By your handle I can't tell whether you're stupid or English isn't your native tongue (or both).
maybe they can come help us in Afghanistan.
But doesn't each distro add their own "we know best" patches, so thus slightly different code would be generated?
But they'd do a better job of not allowing privilege escalation bugs.
Also, ESPOL and NEWP are system languages.
Adding a wireless device to such an environment seams a really bad idea!
It's not that difficult to disable wifi and go with wired-only.
So the statement rootkit does not touch files on storage but patches running processes in memory is wrong (or at the very least, misleading?
Restarting would just have the rootkit re-infect your daemons at launch.
But then it's not RAM-only. Am I misunderstanding you?
B&D languages like Ada. (I wonder if there are any ESPOL or NEWP compilers for x86-64...)
Wouldn't this be a highly distro-specific attack? Or can the malware crawl through the binaries and figure out where to inject it's code?
something polished instead of raw should try XFCE. With a little tweaking, I have xubuntu 13.04 looking a whole lot like GNOME 2.32 from Ubuntu 10.10.
Madministration
I see what you did there!
I've seen too many people (a) misinterpret the blatantly obvious, in the zealous surety of their rightness, and (b) lie for political advantage.
Thus, just as I'm withholding judgment on BO's apparent evilness, I withhold judgment on the alleged reason why the tapes were to be destroyed.
number of tracks, head design, and the circuitry that goes with it
That's exactly what I was thinking when I referred to long-gone manufacturers. Otherwise, you could toss them on "modern" IBM 9-track drives and pull the data onto modern media for decipherment.
Or NASA data from deep space probes that's stored in now-unknown formats on mag tapes from long, long, long gone manufacturers.
Whether that helps people in San Francisco or politicians in DC sleep better at night, I couldn't say.
They should not sleep well at night, but unreliable, MIRV-less missiles shouldn't be the reason.
It just will likely be really expensive to field.
(There, FTFY.) That's what made MIRVs so dangerous.
I'm old enough to remember peaceniks, the FAS, etc, whining and moaning that the turbine engine would fail within a few miles in a real war because it hadn't been tested enough under harsh conditions.
I wouldn't use the word "operational" to describe a system that has yet to be used successfully in actual conflict and which has only been tested a handful of times.
So the M-1 Abrams tank didn't become "operational" until Desert Storm?
it is already being tested today.
It's been in operational status for 7 years. Interceptor sites are Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenburg AFB.
Then we'll make new missiles that have an even faster terminal stage velocity
No, we'll make missiles with multiple independent reentry vehicles. (Oh, wait: we did that 40 years ago.)
God, I feel smug: I'm on Cox Cable's 25/2.5 Mbps tier yet Speedtest.net regularly shows 32/7.5 speeds. Downloading from YouTube regularly hits 25Mbps.
they grew wings and trained humans to build them houses and bags of high quality food.
You neglected to mention what we do with them next... ;)
OTOH, you got fiber. Thus, the threat of competition got them to upgrade their infrastructure.
I never claimed that India wanted to use nuclear weapons against US naval targets.
Sorry.
The rest is just physics.
Which I think reinforces my notion that we *can* intercept ICBMs, since we *can* intercept IRBMs. The US has had anti-ICBM kinetic energy warheads in operational status since 2006. They're in Alaska, within range of DPRK, Russian and PRC missiles, but practical only against DPRK single-warhead rockets. (Soviet ABMs were nuclear tipped. The current Russian version still uses nukes.)
You're still under the delusion that India somehow is targeting (or wants to target) their nukes at us to defend against our navy, which is so absurd as to call all your technical assumptions into question.
than people with Bluetooth headsets gabbing away as if they're schizophrenics talking to their imaginary friends.
ICBMs are too fast for conventional SAMs
What do you consider a "conventional" SAM?
They might maneuver to be harder to hit, or they might have other countermeasures, or they might perform a terminal burn to increase their velocity even further
You're 50 years behind the curve: the AS-4 "Kitchen" was designed in the 1950s and put into service 51 years ago had a terminal dive of Mach 4.6.
Maneuvering countermeasures at those speeds are really difficult, because the tiny wings on the missiles are designed only to keep them stable.
Note that the main purpose of the combo of F-14 fighter, AN/AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles was to shoot down Kitchen and Kelt-carrying Sov bombers before they could launch their missiles.
(There was a time when all /. readers knew this...)