Exactly my point. This is well known already in big store chains, and probably this method costs just as much.
Most big stores don't care how much time you spend in the store (as long as you don't consume a sales clerk's time), and the longer you spend the more likely you are to buy. They know how to place impulse items, and have been doing that well since the Pleistocene. They know exactly how well their advertising works.
Looking at the pictures, several ribs were completely busted off of the spar, as well as several bulkheads breached.
Pictures Damage10 thru Damage15 shows the bottom flange of the spar completely broken away, a testament to strengths of the bolts attached. This could also be indicative of accumulated metal fatigue from many flight hours.
Never the less, the amount of over-pressure must have been astounding.
The interesting thing is that the plane took off, presumably with this tank full, and it was re-fueled in-flight.
So the questions that come to mind are,
1) How did this not happen during ground fueling? Smaller pipes I presume 2) Why didn't the tanker's back pressure sensor shut down the flow?
Boeing has already suggested a same or lower cost solution based on the 737, which is dramatically more fuel efficient.
Football? What?, oh wait, misread. Someone tell me I'm not alone in that error.
At the end of the day does this yield better results than counting sales at the close of business? More complicated results, perhaps, but after analyzing traffic patterns all day long studying dwell time at displays, does it really yield anything useful that the store owner can actually act upon, re-arranging the displays, etc?
And if they do act on the data, it will almost certainly be to benefit one product area vs another. Will there be any net gain for the store as a whole?
Won't wholesalers with clout demand the data and push hard for the best locations or shelving decisions? If you have data, you are going to be forced to share it sooner or later, and when everyone is rushing past the Laptop counters to get to the TV display area, is there anything short of re-arranging the store you can do about it? Won't Dell, HP, and Apple, insist on being on the high traffic routes? Didn't the store owner just lose control?
And at the end of the day, is it different in any way from just tallying sales ?
If he did as he admitted to doing, he did commit a crime in the US. It doesn't matter where you were sitting when you did it.
It may or may not be a crime in the UK to hack a computer outside the UK. I'm not sure any US law makes it a crime to hack a computer in the UK either.
Twitter hardly requires a warrant. Posting there is like screaming out in a crowd.
You have to wonder why anyone "heard" them? I suspect they were not as milk-toast innocent as they are made out to be, and were being followed for other reasons.
He 'logged in' to unsecured military systems which were deemed to be secured. Yes, he did knowingly access systems which he was not allowed to, however the 'hacking' that took place was merely the use of default common credentials usernames and passwords.
Seriously, what systems come with default passwords, even 10 years ago? How many hundreds of thousands of attempts did he make to break in?
You believe without question his lame-ass defense, but give no credence what so ever to the professionals in the agencies he hacked into?
No wonder the US wants him tired in the US.
He's British, and he's Sick (cough for us Gary), see, so he gets off scott free, big bully USA, Go away, cuz, he's British!
If the situation was reversed, you'd be screaming for American blood.
The Keep-Alive per RFC5626, consists of 2 CLRF pairs sent from the hanset (4 characters plus TCP wrapper) answered by a single CLRF pair (plus wrapper). Minimal wrapper, IIRC is about 16 bytes, so every 3 minutes twenty bytes out, followed by 18 bytes back in.
Pretty hard to throttle that down to anything less if you ask me.
Because the networks are so unreliable many sip clients send a packet back and forth, using CRLF-CRLF ping answered by a single CRLF pong, according to RFC5626.
So the load is WAY different than connection to the base station: Its WAY SMALLER, and WAY LESS FREQUENT.
It's not VoIP calls that are the cited problem, it's the periodic signals when it's not in use that tell the server, "Hey, I'm still here!"
Which, by the way, are usually just keep alive packets sent on sockets that are already open. Seriously, if these tiny packets are hurting their network how cramped must their bandwidth be?
Admittedly, these SIP/Voip clients could use the more common method of opening a socket and letting it sit there till the socket times out, then re-initiate. This needs to be done once every 15 to 18 minutes, and no actual data needs to go across the link in the mean time. (In fact the radio's can go into deep sleep mode).
However, every email check, facebook check, check-in, or weather update causes way more data transfer than a few packets sent back and forth on an already open socket.
I've got a SIP connection up on my smartphone 24/7, and I've seen zero impact on my data usage, even when I get several calls per day over 3G. The software uses keep-alive packets at an interval I can set to detect early connection failure. Many SIP providers haven't yet set brought their servers up to the point where they can rely on socket timeout as a signaling method, and simply drop the registration of the sip client when this happens.
What really has me excited about Windows 8 is Kinect. I think we're going to see a big transformation in the landscape of user interface in the next several years pushing us towards device-less interfaces.
Granted, this stuff isn't a replacement, it's a supplement. So don't think I'm preaching the death of touch or mouse and keyboard. The more options of well developed and useful interfaces we have the better.
I think device-less interface make sense for hand held computers, and less and less sense as you scale up the size of the computer. Contrary to the scenes in CSI-Miami, flinging things around a huge table sensor is not particularly useful or efficient. Nor is reaching across your keyboard to move or select some object by dragging it across your 24 inch screen.
Even on a level of effort basis, waiving hands and fingers around in the air is pretty much a non-starter. (Not to be too George Jetson here...). Then there is the on/off problem. Were you gesticulating while talking to your work-mate, or editing paragraphs on the page? Mice do nothing much unless you click.
The mouse still rules, and even the Wacom Bamboo line of touch/pen input devices are clumsy approximations. Mice cost anywhere from 2 to 40 dollars, are amazingly precise, and by now, fully intuitive across all platforms.
If QWERTY can last from 1878 to the present, something far more elegant like the mouse is going to have a very long life.
Kinect will probably remain for games, and maybe music (performance, not listening), and the air guitar is going to become a REAL instrument.
Still seems a bit of a risk though. Iran looks like a likely enemy at some point, and it's possible they have something that can catch a U-2.
Its not likely that the UT will see duty in strongly contested air space such as over Iran. The drones will still fly there. Further the U2 has been re-engined since the Russian shoot down, its ceiling raised. Even that shoot down was because the U2 was not at its maximum altitude. (And the Russians shot down their own Mig while attempting to hit the U2).
There is virtually no risk to the U2 over Afghanistan or even large portions of tribal Pakistan, the horn of Africa, and similar places. The greatest risk in these areas is a mechanical failure forcing a landing or a bail out.
Its not like the Air Force and CIA are shutting down the entire Drone program.
U2s have none of these problems. Its tricky to land, but otherwise a very docile craft with a pretty good safety record.
Even Gary Power's UT was not at max altitude when shot down, because the S-75 missile can't get that high, its ceiling at that time was 20,000 m (66,000 ft).
SR-71 can't loiter, is not particularly stealthy in this day and age, and flies way too fast to use the modern imaging systems in use. Stealth is not that important in the theater the U2 is working, the enemy there has nothing that can reach it anyway.
These days flying over and snapping a picture is not that important. Loitering and sending low-light high quality (extremely high), digital imagery and live video it what matters.
If I remember correctly, the U-2 some years ago swapped out the original engines for essentially modified B-2 bomber engines (the F-118), which cut the fuel consumption and allowed for longer flights at altitudes above 70,000 feet. I believe that with the J57 and J75 engines, the U-2 maxed out at around 73,000 feet; the F118 could probably take it to over 76,000 feet.
Correct on the engines. But the Air Force will only admit to 70,000 feet. (wink wink).
No, latency is a good answer. At the rate that Google is going, it will only be a few years before they can slurp as much data from the world as the NSA, CIA and the various other three letter agencies. And the analysts will get relevant advertisements as a bonus.
Just hang on a bit, it's not the the international situation will be a whole lot different. In the wise words of Tom Robbins, it is 'desperate, as usual'.
I'm sure you just couldn't pass up the chance for a drive by Google blast, but even you, if honest, would realize this will never be true. They will never get that fast. Google buy/beg/or barters most of their images, which are useless in tracking a car full of jihadists running thru the back roads, and nothing like an orbiting UT or Global Hawk.
I flew it during the cold war and the first Gulf war. It's mission has changed dramatically and it's become very relevant to today's mission in Afghanistan. I don't see it going away for a long time!
Seems like the same mission, just a different place.
In areas where the country of interest has no anti-air that can reach it, its still probably the cheapest and most versatile. I would imagine the on-board cameras and other equipment can be upgraded fairly easy as advances in technology allow smaller and smaller packaging.
Or, we could just simply set the tax rate extremely high on licensing income, and then if you can demonstrate that you are in any substantial way responsible for making products based on patents you hold, then you get a break on those taxes.
I like this idea, because the original intent of patents was to allow the inventor a certain period of exclusive use of his patent before it became available for others to use. Its not at all clear that licensing was ever contemplated.
The theory was that the inventor could make more money selling a product incorporating a new invention than a competitor could make without it. But the money came from the selling of the products, not the licensing of the patent.
If you do not want to use tax law, (and there is certainly reason enough not to do so), then you could use the term (duration) of the patent itself. If you make a product using your invention, you get a longer patent term, but if you license it you get a much shorter duration patent.
The theory being the total return on your patent was meant as a temporary monopoly as an incentive to invent. You can choose to achieve this total return in 5 years by licensing the patent to others, vs 15 years by using it yourself. In the first case you multiply your earning power, while assuming no costs and taking no risks, so your period of reward is lessened.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my point.
This is well known already in big store chains, and probably this method costs just as much.
Most big stores don't care how much time you spend in the store (as long as you don't consume a sales clerk's time), and the longer you spend the more likely you are to buy. They know how to place impulse items, and have been doing that well since the Pleistocene. They know exactly how well their advertising works.
Looking at the pictures, several ribs were completely busted off of the spar, as well as several bulkheads breached.
Pictures Damage10 thru Damage15 shows the bottom flange of the spar completely broken away, a testament to strengths of the bolts attached. This could also be indicative of accumulated metal fatigue from many flight hours.
Never the less, the amount of over-pressure must have been astounding.
The interesting thing is that the plane took off, presumably with this tank full, and it was re-fueled in-flight.
So the questions that come to mind are,
1) How did this not happen during ground fueling? Smaller pipes I presume
2) Why didn't the tanker's back pressure sensor shut down the flow?
Boeing has already suggested a same or lower cost solution based on the 737, which is dramatically more fuel efficient.
Football? What?, oh wait, misread. Someone tell me I'm not alone in that error.
At the end of the day does this yield better results than counting sales at the close of business?
More complicated results, perhaps, but after analyzing traffic patterns all day long studying dwell time at displays, does it really yield anything useful that the store owner can actually act upon, re-arranging the displays, etc?
And if they do act on the data, it will almost certainly be to benefit one product area vs another. Will there be any net gain for the store as a whole?
Won't wholesalers with clout demand the data and push hard for the best locations or shelving decisions? If you have data, you are going to be forced to share it sooner or later, and when everyone is rushing past the Laptop counters to get to the TV display area, is there anything short of re-arranging the store you can do about it? Won't Dell, HP, and Apple, insist on being on the high traffic routes? Didn't the store owner just lose control?
And at the end of the day, is it different in any way from just tallying sales ?
So as far as the UK is concerned its perfectly legal to hack a foreign computer.
Just don't hack one of theirs.
From your linked article:
The Home Office's massive review of extradition says that the US has not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force.
So I take it that is a full retraction of your BZZT Wrong post?
If he did as he admitted to doing, he did commit a crime in the US. It doesn't matter where you were sitting when you did it.
It may or may not be a crime in the UK to hack a computer outside the UK.
I'm not sure any US law makes it a crime to hack a computer in the UK either.
The US does not refuse to extradite its citizens who commit crimes over seas.
List of countries with which US has bi-directional extradition treaties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties
Even where there is no such treaty:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00003196----000-.html
It Happens a lot more than you think:
http://www.peruviantimes.com/17/american-citizen-to-be-extradited-to-peru-for-killing-wife-and-dumping-body-at-sea/3491/
http://www.modernghana.com/news/70410/1/extradited-us-citizen-for-trial-today.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/cas/press/cas11-1121-Extraditions.pdf
Twitter hardly requires a warrant. Posting there is like screaming out in a crowd.
You have to wonder why anyone "heard" them? I suspect they were not as milk-toast innocent as
they are made out to be, and were being followed for other reasons.
It isn't the end.
It isn't even the beginning of the end.
But it is near the end of the beginning.
Apologies to Sir Winston.
Correction.
He 'logged in' to unsecured military systems which were deemed to be secured. Yes, he did knowingly access systems which he was not allowed to, however the 'hacking' that took place was merely the use of default common credentials usernames and passwords.
Seriously, what systems come with default passwords, even 10 years ago? How many hundreds of thousands of attempts did he make to break in?
You believe without question his lame-ass defense, but give no credence what so ever to the professionals in the agencies he hacked into?
No wonder the US wants him tired in the US.
He's British, and he's Sick (cough for us Gary), see, so he gets off scott free, big bully USA, Go away, cuz, he's British!
If the situation was reversed, you'd be screaming for American blood.
Throttle?
The Keep-Alive per RFC5626, consists of 2 CLRF pairs sent from the hanset (4 characters plus TCP wrapper) answered by a single CLRF pair (plus wrapper). Minimal wrapper, IIRC is about 16 bytes, so every 3 minutes twenty bytes out, followed by 18 bytes back in.
Pretty hard to throttle that down to anything less if you ask me.
They need to fix their network.
Its a tcp/ip connection, that's all.
Because the networks are so unreliable many sip clients send a packet back and forth, using CRLF-CRLF ping answered by a single CRLF pong, according to RFC5626.
So the load is WAY different than connection to the base station: Its WAY SMALLER, and WAY LESS FREQUENT.
It's not VoIP calls that are the cited problem, it's the periodic signals when it's not in use that tell the server, "Hey, I'm still here!"
Which, by the way, are usually just keep alive packets sent on sockets that are already open.
Seriously, if these tiny packets are hurting their network how cramped must their bandwidth be?
Admittedly, these SIP/Voip clients could use the more common method of opening a socket and letting it sit there till the socket times out, then re-initiate. This needs to be done once every 15 to 18 minutes, and no actual data needs to go across the link in the mean time. (In fact the radio's can go into deep sleep mode).
However, every email check, facebook check, check-in, or weather update causes way more data transfer than a few packets sent back and forth on an already open socket.
I've got a SIP connection up on my smartphone 24/7, and I've seen zero impact on my data usage, even when I get several calls per day over 3G. The software uses keep-alive packets at an interval I can set to detect early connection failure. Many SIP providers haven't yet set brought their servers up to the point where they can rely on socket timeout as a signaling method, and simply drop the registration of the sip client when this happens.
What really has me excited about Windows 8 is Kinect. I think we're going to see a big transformation in the landscape of user interface in the next several years pushing us towards device-less interfaces.
Granted, this stuff isn't a replacement, it's a supplement. So don't think I'm preaching the death of touch or mouse and keyboard. The more options of well developed and useful interfaces we have the better.
I think device-less interface make sense for hand held computers, and less and less sense as you scale up the size of the computer.
Contrary to the scenes in CSI-Miami, flinging things around a huge table sensor is not particularly useful or efficient. Nor is reaching across your keyboard to move or select some object by dragging it across your 24 inch screen.
Even on a level of effort basis, waiving hands and fingers around in the air is pretty much a non-starter. (Not to be too George Jetson here...).
Then there is the on/off problem. Were you gesticulating while talking to your work-mate, or editing paragraphs on the page? Mice do nothing much unless you click.
The mouse still rules, and even the Wacom Bamboo line of touch/pen input devices are clumsy approximations.
Mice cost anywhere from 2 to 40 dollars, are amazingly precise, and by now, fully intuitive across all platforms.
If QWERTY can last from 1878 to the present, something far more elegant like the mouse is going to have a very long life.
Kinect will probably remain for games, and maybe music (performance, not listening), and the air guitar is going to become a REAL instrument.
Still seems a bit of a risk though. Iran looks like a likely enemy at some point, and it's possible they have something that can catch a U-2.
Its not likely that the UT will see duty in strongly contested air space such as over Iran. The drones will still fly there. Further the U2 has been re-engined since the Russian shoot down, its ceiling raised. Even that shoot down was because the U2 was not at its maximum altitude. (And the Russians shot down their own Mig while attempting to hit the U2).
There is virtually no risk to the U2 over Afghanistan or even large portions of tribal Pakistan, the horn of Africa, and similar places. The greatest risk in these areas is a mechanical failure forcing a landing or a bail out.
Its not like the Air Force and CIA are shutting down the entire Drone program.
U2s have none of these problems. Its tricky to land, but otherwise a very docile craft with a pretty good safety record.
Even Gary Power's UT was not at max altitude when shot down, because the S-75 missile can't get that high, its ceiling at that time was 20,000 m (66,000 ft).
An aircraft that can't do the job is a total waste of money.
You can't follow a pickup load of jihadists across a winding mountain road at mach 3.
SR-71 can't loiter, is not particularly stealthy in this day and age, and flies way too fast to use the modern imaging systems in use.
Stealth is not that important in the theater the U2 is working, the enemy there has nothing that can reach it anyway.
These days flying over and snapping a picture is not that important.
Loitering and sending low-light high quality (extremely high), digital imagery and live video it what matters.
If I remember correctly, the U-2 some years ago swapped out the original engines for essentially modified B-2 bomber engines (the F-118), which cut the fuel consumption and allowed for longer flights at altitudes above 70,000 feet. I believe that with the J57 and J75 engines, the U-2 maxed out at around 73,000 feet; the F118 could probably take it to over 76,000 feet.
Correct on the engines. But the Air Force will only admit to 70,000 feet. (wink wink).
I have no idea what a TR-1 is, but the official US Airforce page still calls them U-2s or TU-2s.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=129
Maybe you are talking about NASA's versions.
No, latency is a good answer. At the rate that Google is going, it will only be a few years before they can slurp as much data from the world as the NSA, CIA and the various other three letter agencies. And the analysts will get relevant advertisements as a bonus.
Just hang on a bit, it's not the the international situation will be a whole lot different. In the wise words of Tom Robbins, it is 'desperate, as usual'.
I'm sure you just couldn't pass up the chance for a drive by Google blast, but even you, if honest, would realize this will never be true.
They will never get that fast.
Google buy/beg/or barters most of their images, which are useless in tracking a car full of jihadists running thru the back roads, and
nothing like an orbiting UT or Global Hawk.
I flew it during the cold war and the first Gulf war. It's mission has changed dramatically and it's become very relevant to today's mission in Afghanistan. I don't see it going away for a long time!
Seems like the same mission, just a different place.
In areas where the country of interest has no anti-air that can reach it, its still probably the cheapest and most versatile.
I would imagine the on-board cameras and other equipment can be upgraded fairly easy as advances in technology allow
smaller and smaller packaging.
Supposedly only 35 left, one wonders how long the spare parts hold out.
Several on the ground at Beale.
Who says the cameras aren't getting better?
And of course NONE of the anti-virus or malware scanners caught even One instance of this in the wild.
SYMANTIC advertising their own uselessness.
Or, we could just simply set the tax rate extremely high on licensing income, and then if you can demonstrate that you are in any substantial way responsible for making products based on patents you hold, then you get a break on those taxes.
I like this idea, because the original intent of patents was to allow the inventor a certain period of exclusive use of his patent before it became available for others to use. Its not at all clear that licensing was ever contemplated.
The theory was that the inventor could make more money selling a product incorporating a new invention than a competitor could make without it. But the money came from the selling of the products, not the licensing of the patent.
If you do not want to use tax law, (and there is certainly reason enough not to do so), then you could use the term (duration) of the patent itself. If you make a product using your invention, you get a longer patent term, but if you license it you get a much shorter duration patent.
The theory being the total return on your patent was meant as a temporary monopoly as an incentive to invent. You can choose to achieve this total return in 5 years by licensing the patent to others, vs 15 years by using it yourself. In the first case you multiply your earning power, while assuming no costs and taking no risks, so your period of reward is lessened.