I like how you mention "right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about" then make a half hearted effort to affect fairness with the whimpy "expect every political party out there is doing something similar" line.
Well played sir. You have a promising career in astroturfing.
Perhaps, then,, in your wisdom, you can explain the GP's original sentence:
Andromeda is perpendicular to the visible sky from Earth. This new collection of galaxies is parallel to the visible sky from Earth.
There is precisely zero difference between Andromeda and the new Cluster when viewed from some generic place on earth. That it is tangential at one point on earth and perpendicular at another seems completely lost on the GP, and you. Both are totally useless terms of reference. That you can't see this suggests you too suffer from a pre-Copernican conceptual model of the universe.
Their concept is little more than a replacement of the torpedo/warhead with a robotic intelligence-gathering module.
A robotic intelligence-gathering module that lies inert at 4000 feet deep doing nothing until you need an aerial reconnaissance platform in some remote corner of the globe. At which time you trigger it remotely, if floats to the surface, launches a balloon or remotely piloted aircraft with satellite up-link capabilities.
Somehow I think that's reasonably novel.
You've managed to totally misread TFA. There is no plan to have automated munitions deployed. These are not autonomous area denial weapons.
They want something sitting on the ocean floor tethered to NOTHING. When it receives a signal, it becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes active, and perhaps even launches an airborn observation platform, (probably balloon or short life drone).
Until triggered, it is essentially inert, it has no connection with the surface, so a long life power source is needed to keep the radio listening. They are looking for the capability to handle multiple different types of payload, at least initially none of those payloads would be munitions. They want them cheap enough that they can be planted in reasonably large numbers and left there for as long as possible.
DARPA is essentially throwing up their hands at the problem of locomotion and saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors
Static Sensors is not the principal focus here. The navy has been using sonobuoys for decades, and yes they do just pepper the ocean with them.
The payload of these pods would have active components, Waterborn or Airborn (drone or balloon) that could be triggered into action to provide eyes and ears on events of interest without having to wait till a carrier with drone capabilities arrived on scene. They are specifically talking about unarmed pods with surveillance payloads that lurk on the ocean floor, perhaps for decades, until remotely commanded to launch.
This is different than your typical sonobouy in that it has an active and mobile component once triggered, but lays dormant until that point, using nothing but a low power radio waiting for a specific signal.
Almost half of the world's oceans are more than four kilometers deep. This provides considerable opportunity for cheap stealth. The vastness and depth make retrieval costs prohibitive.
This of course totally misses the point that you need only recover ONE, and reverse engineer that one to obtain control over the rest.
If a relatively unsophisticated enemy can surf our live drone video stream in Pakistan right off of our own satellites, what would prevent a state sponsored group from recovering one with ROVs. Once you have one, you could theoretically take over control of these pods, launching them all at once to expend themselves well ahead of some planned attack in a particular part of the world.
Being located outside on one's own territorial waters, there is probably amble justification under marine salvage laws and treaties for private parties to recover these and sell them to the highest bidder.
IE's problem is not the engine, it's the shitty interface.
(Ditto about Windows 8, many would say.)
The interface is not a major problem. (Note that the interface is the first major complaint of new Chrome users especially the missing dedicated search box).
The big problem with IE is the horrible propensity and history of getting hacked or pwned when using that browser.
But more to the point, since this Slashdot post asks a yes/no question, we can, true to form, answer with NO.
Competition avoids a mono-culture, and provides a refuge when one or the other browser is compromised.
Oddly, competition with multiple browser engines enforces standards. When Microsoft had something like 80 or 90 percent of the installed base they used that to impose de facto standards that we still suffer from today. The same would be true if webkit suddenly ruled the browser market.
Andromeda is perpendicular to the visible sky from Earth. This new collection of galaxies is parallel to the visible sky from Earth.
The concept of parallel makes no sense when referring the the "visible sky" which is roughly a half sphere, and a half sphere that varies according to one's position on the earth. The geocentric model of the universe has fallen into disfavor recently. You may want to consider some more modern conceptual models.
Assigning some numbering system to perceived localized concentrations in a random universe is sort of like throwing more money in a Vegas Slot Machine on the theory that some supposed law of averages suggests you are bound to start winning any minute now.
Clumps of anything in a random universe are not rare.
It seem just as likely that the clump is simply a term used by astronomers to refer to that group we were talking about during coffee break. The word "structure" seems a bit of a stretch here, when you consider that the perceived organization may depend on where the observer sits, or what numbers one assigns to the things being counted.
Left unanswered are questions like: Are these all moving in the same direction away from some common origin? Are they all moving at approximately the same speed? Do they all exhibit similar spectra?
The crank works, and it doesn't violate any basic rules of physics.
What doesn't work, and what does violate the rules of physics, are some of the the claims made for the crank.
Look, people, its just a SHORTER CRANK arm. Its a gimmick, and you can't say anything about its main claims unless you look at the number of teeth on the chain ring.
The claims made are:
Smoother pedaling More power to climb hills Less perceived effort to pedal Faster acceleration Less affected by headwinds Ability to turn higher gearing
None of these pertain to the crank arms, but all could be true if the gear ratios are selected to accomplish this (smaller chain ring). Bike cranks are typically sold with the spider and chain rings. So the manufacturer markets a gimmick crank arm with modifications to the chain ring tooth count to mask his deception.
The bent cranks do nothing that a shorter crank wouldn't do, because that is all they are, a shorter crank.
Where the hell do you live? Back woods of Kentucky or some place?
I use a War Driving app (WiGLE WIFI) on my android on my rides and walks around my area, and open WIFI is a rarity in residential areas. I mean like one house in a hundred. In my subdivision of 75 houses there isn't even one unencrypted router. Not one. (There are several routers with Guest accounts, but even these require a password after you get an IP).
There are some facts an figures about this gleaned from users of this app posted here: https://wigle.net/gps/gps/main/stats/ Unencrypted wifi is on a steady downward trend, now down to about 18% over all areas that WiGLE users visit.
When you allow for those that are open on purpose (coffee shops restaurants, libraries) you are probably down to 12% of residential users leave their wifi open.
But it doesn't seem at all related to the location under discussion, any more than the adjacent rice paddies.
That airfield is a commercial airport. Stepping back in time using Google earth the only thing remotely military I saw was two choppers parked in the elephant ear on the west end back in 2005.
The Test Track is also interesting, because it didn't exist in 2009 either. That oval whole complex of concentric roads seems to be some sort of industrial park, half of which seems to be used for orchards (or something), (north half) ad that use dates back to 2002.
Work on the test track portion (the south east quarter of the oval) began in 2009, which is about the time that works started on the buildings under discussion. Zooming in on the test track we see nothing but trucks, big open topped trucks, (gravel trucks, ore carriers, perhaps). Nothing remotely military looking, and lots of driving obstacle course exercises, parking exercises. Populated by trucks, not a single tracked vehicle in site. Not even a maintenance shop in site.
I think you've found a driving school. Probably to teach the farm boys to drive trucks, perhaps to drive trucks in support of that mining operation at some later point in time when its up and in production.
There is also what appears to be a new Agricultural School north east of the oval area. Has a playing field,as well as crop fields.
I agree. Because this would require them to provide evidence and a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. As it stands, any unsubstantiated claim by anybody or any automated process seems to convict you in Verizon's eyes, and even to contest the claim costs you money.
Question: Do those making such claims have to put up money up-front?
So, basically, Verizon is saying if some kids go there and hack my wireless router, they'll shut me down forever?
Seriously?
Good thing I encrypted it... but most people don't know how to do that.
Most people DO know how to encrypt their wireless traffic. Most routers come with that set ON out of the box. Most routers are now forcing password changes and or have unique passwords (serial number embedded).
It takes more effort to run a modern router wide open, without encryption these days than to run it correctly out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how you mention "right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about" then make a half hearted effort to affect fairness with the whimpy "expect every political party out there is doing something similar" line.
Well played sir. You have a promising career in astroturfing.
Perhaps, then,, in your wisdom, you can explain the GP's original sentence:
Andromeda is perpendicular to the visible sky from Earth. This new collection of galaxies is parallel to the visible sky from Earth.
There is precisely zero difference between Andromeda and the new Cluster when viewed from some generic place on earth. That it is tangential at one point on earth and perpendicular at another seems completely lost on the GP, and you. Both are totally useless terms of reference. That you can't see this suggests you too suffer from a pre-Copernican conceptual model of the universe.
Dear Dave69: Please read TFA, These are not weapons and they are not mines.
These are not weapons. READ TFA and stop making a fool out of yourself.
READ TFA.
These are not weapon platforms.
Their concept is little more than a replacement of the torpedo/warhead with a robotic intelligence-gathering module.
A robotic intelligence-gathering module that lies inert at 4000 feet deep doing nothing until you need an aerial reconnaissance platform in some remote corner of the globe. At which time you trigger it remotely, if floats to the surface, launches a balloon or remotely piloted aircraft with satellite up-link capabilities.
Somehow I think that's reasonably novel.
You've managed to totally misread TFA. There is no plan to have automated munitions deployed. These are not autonomous area denial weapons.
Its not a mine, so you don't have to disclose them. There is no ordinance payload.
These are not mines. They do not explode.
Let me state that in another easier to understand way: THESE ARE NOT MINES.
Rest of your rant is pretty pointless until you RTFA.
Photo voltaic recharging at 4000 feet deep?
You didn't bother to read the article did you?
Try reading TFA. (Yeah, I know).
They want something sitting on the ocean floor tethered to NOTHING. When it receives a signal, it becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes active, and perhaps even launches an airborn observation platform, (probably balloon or short life drone).
Until triggered, it is essentially inert, it has no connection with the surface, so a long life power source is needed to keep the radio listening. They are looking for the capability to handle multiple different types of payload, at least initially none of those payloads would be munitions. They want them cheap enough that they can be planted in reasonably large numbers and left there for as long as possible.
DARPA is essentially throwing up their hands at the problem of locomotion and saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors
Static Sensors is not the principal focus here. The navy has been using sonobuoys for decades, and yes they do just pepper the ocean with them.
The payload of these pods would have active components, Waterborn or Airborn (drone or balloon) that could be triggered into action to provide eyes and ears on events of interest without having to wait till a carrier with drone capabilities arrived on scene. They are specifically talking about unarmed pods with surveillance payloads that lurk on the ocean floor, perhaps for decades, until remotely commanded to launch.
This is different than your typical sonobouy in that it has an active and mobile component once triggered, but lays dormant until that point, using nothing but a low power radio waiting for a specific signal.
Exactly.
TFA says (glibly)
Almost half of the world's oceans are more than four kilometers deep. This provides considerable opportunity for cheap stealth. The vastness and depth make retrieval costs prohibitive.
This of course totally misses the point that you need only recover ONE, and reverse engineer that one to obtain control over the rest.
If a relatively unsophisticated enemy can surf our live drone video stream in Pakistan right off of our own satellites, what would prevent a state sponsored group from recovering one with ROVs. Once you have one, you could theoretically take over control of these pods, launching them all at once to expend themselves well ahead of some planned attack in a particular part of the world.
Being located outside on one's own territorial waters, there is probably amble justification under marine salvage laws and treaties for private parties to recover these and sell them to the highest bidder.
IE's problem is not the engine, it's the shitty interface.
(Ditto about Windows 8, many would say.)
The interface is not a major problem. (Note that the interface is the first major complaint of new Chrome users especially the missing dedicated search box).
The big problem with IE is the horrible propensity and history of getting hacked or pwned when using that browser.
But more to the point, since this Slashdot post asks a yes/no question, we can, true to form, answer with NO.
Competition avoids a mono-culture, and provides a refuge when one or the other browser is compromised.
Oddly, competition with multiple browser engines enforces standards. When Microsoft had something like 80 or 90 percent of the installed base they used that to impose de facto standards that we still suffer from today. The same would be true if webkit suddenly ruled the browser market.
Andromeda is perpendicular to the visible sky from Earth. This new collection of galaxies is parallel to the visible sky from Earth.
The concept of parallel makes no sense when referring the the "visible sky" which is roughly a half sphere, and a half sphere that varies according to one's position on the earth. The geocentric model of the universe has fallen into disfavor recently. You may want to consider some more modern conceptual models.
Assigning some numbering system to perceived localized concentrations in a random universe is sort of like throwing more money in a Vegas Slot Machine on the theory that some supposed law of averages suggests you are bound to start winning any minute now.
Clumps of anything in a random universe are not rare.
It seem just as likely that the clump is simply a term used by astronomers to refer to that group we were talking about during coffee break.
The word "structure" seems a bit of a stretch here, when you consider that the perceived organization may depend on where the observer sits, or what numbers one assigns to the things being counted.
Left unanswered are questions like:
Are these all moving in the same direction away from some common origin?
Are they all moving at approximately the same speed?
Do they all exhibit similar spectra?
All cranks bend. Ride enough and you can see and feel it on a cheap bike.
Easily hidden in the gear ratios of the chain rings and rear cluster.
The crank works, and it doesn't violate any basic rules of physics.
What doesn't work, and what does violate the rules of physics, are some of the the claims made for the crank.
Look, people, its just a SHORTER CRANK arm. Its a gimmick, and you can't say anything about its main claims
unless you look at the number of teeth on the chain ring.
The claims made are:
Smoother pedaling
More power to climb hills
Less perceived effort to pedal
Faster acceleration
Less affected by headwinds
Ability to turn higher gearing
None of these pertain to the crank arms, but all could be true if the gear ratios are selected to accomplish this
(smaller chain ring). Bike cranks are typically sold with the spider and chain rings. So the manufacturer
markets a gimmick crank arm with modifications to the chain ring tooth count to mask his deception.
The bent cranks do nothing that a shorter crank wouldn't do, because that is all they are, a shorter crank.
You had me right up to that part about Journalism having ethics....
CBS owned CNET
But apparently CBS never learned to spell Streisand.
Take your walk digitally. https://wigle.net/gps/gps//BMap/onlinemap2/
Where the hell do you live? Back woods of Kentucky or some place?
I use a War Driving app (WiGLE WIFI) on my android on my rides and walks around my area, and open WIFI is a rarity in residential areas.
I mean like one house in a hundred. In my subdivision of 75 houses there isn't even one unencrypted router. Not one.
(There are several routers with Guest accounts, but even these require a password after you get an IP).
There are some facts an figures about this gleaned from users of this app posted here: https://wigle.net/gps/gps/main/stats/
Unencrypted wifi is on a steady downward trend, now down to about 18% over all areas that WiGLE users visit.
When you allow for those that are open on purpose (coffee shops restaurants, libraries) you are probably down to 12% of residential
users leave their wifi open.
Very interesting.
But it doesn't seem at all related to the location under discussion, any more than the adjacent rice paddies.
That airfield is a commercial airport. Stepping back in time using Google earth the only thing remotely military I saw was two choppers parked in the elephant ear on the west end back in 2005.
The Test Track is also interesting, because it didn't exist in 2009 either. That oval whole complex of concentric roads seems to be some sort of industrial park, half of which seems to be used for orchards (or something), (north half) ad that use dates back to 2002.
Work on the test track portion (the south east quarter of the oval) began in 2009, which is about the time that works started on the buildings under discussion.
Zooming in on the test track we see nothing but trucks, big open topped trucks, (gravel trucks, ore carriers, perhaps). Nothing remotely military looking, and lots of driving obstacle course exercises, parking exercises. Populated by trucks, not a single tracked vehicle in site. Not even a maintenance shop in site.
I think you've found a driving school. Probably to teach the farm boys to drive trucks, perhaps to drive trucks in support of that mining operation at some later point in time when its up and in production.
There is also what appears to be a new Agricultural School north east of the oval area. Has a playing field,as well as crop fields.
Back pockets filled by media companies funding the entire operation I suspect.
I agree. Because this would require them to provide evidence and a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
As it stands, any unsubstantiated claim by anybody or any automated process seems to convict you in Verizon's eyes, and even to contest the claim costs you money.
Question: Do those making such claims have to put up money up-front?
So, basically, Verizon is saying if some kids go there and hack my wireless router, they'll shut me down forever?
Seriously?
Good thing I encrypted it ... but most people don't know how to do that.
Most people DO know how to encrypt their wireless traffic.
Most routers come with that set ON out of the box.
Most routers are now forcing password changes and or have unique passwords (serial number embedded).
It takes more effort to run a modern router wide open, without encryption these days than to run it correctly out of the box.