While its possible, its not likely against modern missiles. When the Likes of the F15 and MiG25 hit the scene, weapon designers started taking a second look. These days, its simply not likely unless engagement occurs at extremely long ranges.
Closing apps is also a choice available to the applications programmer. You can offer a "close" function in your app, it's just not necessary for most applications.
Just to bring this home, offing a "close" function does absolutely nothing. Android is under absolutely no obligation to actually "close" the app. In fact, it doesn't. It simply marks the application as the best candidate to be reaped when memory is required. In this way, Android attempts to cache applications, saving another load from flash in case the application is required again. On low memory devices the reap may immediate take place, but its likely it would already happen because a terminating activity is already marked as being ripe for reaping.
There is an exception here, but its for services. Services which are no longer required are no longer spawned and their life cycle is no longer managed. Services are what are commonly abused by developers. As such, its important for developers to properly ("request" to) terminate their services and to not start persistent services unless they really require it to persist. For example, a weather application periodically grabs updates. Even when updates are disabled, they still run their service. Furthermore, periodic updates don't require a persistent service. Surprisingly, many common and popular weather applications have these bugs - or don't allow updates to be disabled.
Only the executable part of an Android application has to reside in the primary flash storage (still a ridiculous restriction to have designed in however).
Your comments are laughably ignorant. This restriction exists because security is important. To not have this restriction is to not have a security model. Apple doesn't have this problem because you can't exchange your flash - and THAT'S ridiculous in this day and age.
Doesn't negate the fact that comparing Android to iPhone OS 3.2 will be like night and day in terms of the software available and how it works in terms of ease of use.
I agree and so does many consumers; including those iPhone holders moving to Android. There's a reason why Droid grabbed Time's #1 gadget spot, placing the iPhone in the #4 slot. If the iphone was so much better, this would have never happened; especially in a general consumer magazine.
Multitasking is all very well, but having to open a task killer application to kill off background apps to free up memory is tiresome.
Proof that you're not an Android user because not such need exists. This is a common lie told by iphone wanna-bes. The truth is, such applications do exist but knowledgeable people laugh at idiots who use these apps because they not only break other applications but they contribute to the very cause they claim to help. Other developers absolutely hate these applications because they generate bug reports for other developers. Made worse, many complain of reduced battery life, which makes sense as these applications must poll to obtain their task/process information.
If you are a real Android user, which I doubt, and want a real solution, stop installing shit applications on your phone. Only install applications which properly understand resource management per the Android framework. To understand this, a developer need only read two whole pages of documentation. If a developer is too stupid and/or lazy to do this, they don't deserve a spot on your phone.
In short, applications like task killer are a waste of money preying on the ignorance of users who would rather purchase another application than actually take responsibility for the applications they have installed. My phone doesn't have a task killer, nor does it need one, and I'm running a G1 with over 60 apps installed. This is basically the low end of Android devices. If my phone doesn't need a task killer, no Android device does. Period. If you feel you really need a task killer application, YOU screwed up - at least twice!
All apps should quit when closed unless they need to run in the background, if they need to check periodically for tweets, email, etc, the underlying Linux has cron.
Yet another dope complaining about their own ignorance. Android manages the entire life cycle of every application and service. The problem is too many developers are improperly starting persistent services and forcefully starting at boot, which is causing trashing. And users are more than happy to keep these applications install despite the obvious degradation in performance. The solution? Don't install shitty applications on your phone and then hide shitty apps with yet another application which causes an endless stream of yet more problems for so many other applications and developers.
If an application starts at boot and it can not be disabled, THAT'S A BUG! If an application runs a persistent service and does not require it to persist, THAT'S A BUG! If an application periodically wakes for updates and does not provide a mechanism to turn off periodic updates, THAT'S A BUG!
At the end of the day, if you insist on running poorly written applications on your device, that's a bug! The only solution is for you not to have anything to do with computers.
The iPad looks immensely compelling as a pick-up-and-use device that I don't have to think about, that does all of the things I wan
Sure wish the trolls would go back under their bridge. The fact that so many Apple trolls are working so hard pretty means they admit Android is superior; else why work so hard to FUD it? Exactly.
For example, app developers on Android can publish without approval, but so can malware developers.
This is true for Apple too. The difference is its easier and costs less to develop for Android. Android is open. Apple is closed. Apple's vetting service is not necessarily in place to prevent trojans. Its in place to protect their property; which is the iPhone its running on. Its hardly unreasonable to believe a trojan can make it past Apple. The only difference is, you'd have to be more ballsy to try.
Basically your position boils down to freedom is bad. People can come up to you and kill you right now so your argument is that no one should have that freedom. Sure its illegal, but they have the freedom to do so. They can freely obtain weapons. They can freely travel to your location. No free society is completely safe. To be clear, this is not a threat - just making a point. The point being, a free society has an inherent risk and certain responsibilities are therefore assumed.
Not to mention, Android limits the amount of disk space for installable apps to something less than 256MB. You can forget about apps that require a large local database, or other large apps like games.
Not true. Even pragmatically its not true. The limits can be changed. But, your comment is completely ignoring the fact that applications are encouraged to use external storage for content. Only absolute dolts would consider 16GB-32GB (and growing) to be a serious limit for a hand held device. Realistically, you're not likely to find an Android application which uses more than a couple dozen MB of internal storage, whereby the rest is deferred to external storage. Just because Android is different and purposely encourages a superior solution doesn't make it bad.
Contrary to your assertions, different is not bad. Freedom is not bad. With freedom comes personal responsibility. It seems in addition to hating freedom, you personally refuse to accept any type of responsibility. In a free society you have that right - but it still makes you useless to society.
Ridiculous! How many SAM generations came during that time?
You call into question the number of generations out one side of your mouth and point out the duration of a single generation out the other. Somehow the irony seems to have been missed.
There hasn't been very many generations. Period. Second of all, in order to create a generation which can counter, you generally have to know what it is you're countering. At best they have a lot of speculation. Third of all, the math doesn't even make sense. Why spend billions creating new target/trigger mechanisms to counter a threat which your not likely to see for at least a decade and immediately know little to nothing about. Fourth, had they started a generation to counter a threat, at that time, they would have no clue what is it they are suppose to counter, and even if they did, the technology gap (counter the counter) between then and how is likely to be huge.
And what are they good for, truly? To carry cruise missiles?
No, dropping bombs. Imagine that, a bomber dropping bombs. Who would of thought. The fact that you're one, confused about its primary role, and two, still have no clue what a bomber is used for, pretty well puts and end to the discussion. Why your comment has been modded up is beyond me.
I think it's going to take a similar catastrophe to move us past the idea of manned combat aircraft.
Not likely. Right now there are some serious limitations to unmanned fighters. The likes of the F22 and F35 are likely to be the last of their kind but they are expected to be in service for the next thirty to fifty years. The fact their anticipated service life is so long pretty well implies that not only do our unmanned fighters have a very long way to do, but that everyone else has a vastly farther distance to travel. Take a serious look around at technological capabilities of other countries. The only countries likely to be able to field an unmanned fighter capable of providing a serious threat to an F22 or F35 is likely to be our ally and even still, likely to be at least a decade away. And that decade could easily be two or more. Aside from Russia, its likely to be a decade or two before another fighter poses a significant air risk to eh F22 and F35, let alone an unmanned vehicle. Furthermore, its extremely unlikely that the first generation of unmanned fighters will be a significant threat to planes like the F22 and F35 because of high latencies between CnC and the aircraft which means some type of advanced AI is going to be required to compensate - and even still, they must first be able to find the aircraft to even engage.
Long story short, you post may be "interesting", but its interesting in the same way any other fiction is.
Actually you are. I've watched documentary of the F15 pilots which engaged the targets. They were retreating the aircraft to Iran.
a few helicopters were seen but no fighters flew to fight against coalition aircraft.[citation needed]
Basically the statement is only half correct. And note, its stating a quotation is needed; which I absolutely agree because it misleads idiots like you. There was also some question about the pilot's origins. Which is to say, some believed it possible the pilots were actually Iranian, but I don't believe that was ever confirmed one way or the other.
Also note, there is a difference between, "flew to fight against" and "retreating to Iran."
The answer is absolutely yes. They started engineering stealth aircraft before the Soviet Union collapsed. They have maintained their program in a drastically reduced capacity until such times they can afford to ramp it back up. They found a partner which allowed them to continue their efforts on a reduced budget.
In absolutely terms, their efforts never stopped. The F22 did not spur this plane. Rather, the F117 spurred it on, which is very much in the midst of the cold war.
Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also,
No idea why you think that. The F117 was basically designed during the 70s and heavily based on prototypes developed during the late 60s. Its shape is heavily derived based on computational limitations of the period. Keep in mind, much of the math was still done on slide rules and less computing power than a 386. Because of this, specific flight profiles are required to maintain radar stealth. In certain aspects, the aircraft is visible on radar. In short, it is not an all aspect stealth aircraft. And once you get close enough, even a radar lock becomes possible.
Modern stealth is designed with new materials and supercomputers. These aircraft maintain stealth at all aspects. Outside of afterburners, even their heat signature is lower than that of the F117. Simply put, the F117 is a dinosaur by modern equivalents. Hell, the F117 basically has clusters of 486s and the F22 has a couple of "super computers." Even from on-board computational capabilities, there's not comparison.
As far as I know, all F22 pilots are F15 pilots. One F22 can take out a squadron of F15s and typically never be seen. Its greatest limitation is weapon payload. Which is to say, a single F22 will run out of ammo before it can even become a target. IIRC, the best public record indicates a 14+:1 kill ratio, or better, with the F22:F15. And keep in mind, the F15 has NEVER been shot down in actual air to air combat. And yes, there has been air to air engagements.
The F15 pilots, after their mock engagements made it very clear that even after they were able to get directly on the tail of the F22, they generally couldn't obtain a lock or after doing so, the lock was quickly lost. Furthermore, because of the huge maneuverability advantages of the F22, it was almost impossible to stay on the F22's tail for any length of time. Some F22 kills were scored but by far, that was the exception rather than the rule. And keep in mind, we're talking about the creme de la creme of fighter pilots sitting in those F15s.
As for your bomb comment, that too is not accurate. That's exactly why all munitions are carried internally. Modern aircraft maintain stealth throughout all stages of flight EXCEPT for actual weapon release. The F22 is capable of releasing missiles inverted and in high G turns because they are mounted on hydraulic rams. They are basically catapulted off the aircraft. This means they can engage targets in aspects and during maneuvers which are impossible with other aircraft. And its only during the actual release that the weapon bay opens. So the window in which stealth is compromised is extremely limited. And the fact that they can super cruise away immediately after engagement means within seconds they are once again phantoms.
Simply put, the number of counties which can even offer an F15-quality of air resistance is extremely tiny and most of them are our allies. Make no bones about it, modern stealth aircraft are light years beyond the poky F117's capabilities in every measurable way possible. To say they have taken a step backwards is completely baseless and in no way accurate.
I'm not even sure why there's a supposed role for fighters any more anyway. When's the last time a plane was downed by another plane, rather than being bombed on or shot from the ground?
Invasion of Iraq is the most recent engagement.
How do you think those bombers get to their target? What do you think a fighter's job is? When bombers go in, fighters intercept. To intercept the fighters you must have fighters. Just watch a WWII movie and the concept is pretty easy to figure out. The basic concept really hasn't changed since WWI. So long as conflict exists, the need for fighters continue to exist.
The problem is the Android framework requires the use of services for any nontrivial background task. The issue with this is, many developers are not managing their service's life cycle properly.
Yes, focus is required when you read. Had you done so properly, you wouldn't have had to post the question.
a citation about the Apple OS limit would be nice.
I need a citation that Apple doesn't have a limit? Holy shit! IIRC, its actually something like 256MB or 512MB, but it really doesn't matter. Which is to say, the limit is so high it doesn't matter for the vast majority of applications. As such, it doesn't have a limit worth mention.
ALL of which is aside the point since you seemingly can't read. Hell, just reading your quote its extremely obvious what the hell is going on - so yes, do focus when you read and stop bothering people with things which have long been answered.
But if you have a question which hasn't already been answered, I will make an honest effort to answer.
The response should include the geographic information and/or a priority which the resolver and/or client can use to determine best record for use.
Its important for people to understand that geographic locality does NOT always mean shortest/fastest/lowest latency path. For example, did a trace route between me, my brother, and friend. Brother lives in neighboring town while friend lives several states away. The result, friend is 9 hops away. My brother, who is in the next town, is 16 hops and higher latency. Now, if we substitute brother and friend with server a and b, they'd be forcing me to use the worst path (highest latency, most hops). This exactly also holds true for games. Rarely would we all find game servers to play on where all three had equal standing based on latency.
if a woman is raped and you see it happen, no matter what you say the rapist will never be charged if the victim does not want to file charges.
Unless, of course, the rapist is her husband. Many states now have mandatory arrest for spousal abuse. Its nice to know rapists are better protected than spouses.
Yes, but who the frak wants an OS that gives 'applications' only 16MB of RAM to run in? Google it yourself if you don't believe me.
Please stop trolling ignorance and FUD. Android proper has no such limit. The limit is set by the hardware manufacturer to prevent a single application from consuming the lion share of memory on a low end (relative to desktop), memory constrained device. Thusly a device with a gig of RAM would have a much larger threshold.
To be absolutely clear, because so many Apple trolls seem to be in a rush to spew ignorance, Android has no such limit. Period. End of discussion. Pragmatically, hardware manufacturers set such limit to ensure quality of operation. Apple's OS doesn't have such a limit because its already extremely limited in that it can't multitask third party software. Since by design a single application can consume the entire device, making such limits don't make sense. But when you have a device, where by design allows for multitasking, you must make such limits to ensure a good user experience.
In short, trolling that Android has a 16MB limit is like screaming to the world you understand exactly how limited and how little control you have on Apple's platform; while ignoring the fact that "Android's limit", is not true.
That's not completely true. Right now the infrastructure in the US is dramatically lacking. Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason why Picken's wind farm effort died. In order for him to deliver the required power would require an additional investment of almost double his cost to produce the power in the first place. He wound up selling off a good chunk of turbines because he couldn't place his already reduced order on the grid, on his farms.
Anything which places additional significant pressures on existing infrastructure is going to demand huge investments in new and improved infrastructure. There's no way around it. Shifting energy delivery from fuel trucks to electrical grid is likely to easily outstrip peak capacity. Remember, many markets already exceed peak capacity during summer loads. Furthermore, building additional, conventional plants is a time consuming process. This means the likely source of peak power until new nuclear, gas, and coal plants can come online will from various solar and wind. To allow for solar and wind to come on line, new infrastructure is absolutely required. No ifs, ands, or buts. Its just not realistic to believe all charging will be deferred to non-peak hours.
Obviously using a slow charge deployment will help defer infrastructure improvements but the piper must still be paid. The only question is, will that cost be paid out over three to five years or more slowly over the next ten to twenty.
No. You can buy motors with the cooling already in place.
My understanding is that its not technically difficult either. You can use convective cooling inside the motor using a electrically neutral (mineral) oil, much like they do for transformers. This combined with air flow can offload considerable heat and without any moving parts or significant increase in weight. The only requirement is that up remain up.
Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs. It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck. By that, I mean:
* Expensive per watt
* Short lifespans
* Inefficient
There are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air. Here's just a couple of my favorites.
You seem very knowledgeable. Which is to say, you've easily surpassed my ignorant bullshit detector on the subject matter.;) Perhaps you'd care to speculate, wildly even, as to why big names such as IBM and the DOE would will be willing to heavily invest so many cycles into Lithium-air if the base technology sucks so badly. Does the fact that they're willing to invest in this technology hint they have some significant reasons to believe this technology trumps existing efforts? Or is it possible the applicable patent portfolio is more open with this given technology and its strictly a business/patent decision. If its the later, it still strikes me as odd because who cares if they can patent a crap-technology if they can't build a business model around it?
At any rate, please speculate away...
Also, are you a chemist? Do you work in the energy storage field?
Bad example. If I by a subsidized computer, I wouldn't expect to do whatever I want with it until my contract term is up. Funny that's pretty much how things work.
Having said that, I think its downright silly that everyone works so hard to prevent root access. As palm has likely shown, I doubt allowing root access has suddenly created a huge support issue.
I guess its more about control to limit people from tethering and whatnot.
By comparison, Palm not only has root available on all their WebOS phones,
That's what developer phones like the ADP1 and Nexus One are for. The ADP1/N1 comes with both root and the engineering boot loader which readily allows for installing alternate images. On the N1, such features is available on every device.
Let me get this straight - whoever figured this out has a mobile phone which has an issue with the firmware which can cause it to crash horribly when making an emergency call.
The fix has been available for over five months. Most every Android device in the world has the fix except for Roger's customers. Of those customers, all users which have installed alternate firmware have long had the fix. So basically Rogers is also disabling service for users who have long been ahead of Rogers.
I believe I remember reading that someone's phone did recently crash during a 911 call and that they died. This is likely why Rogers is being so draconian about the update. Of course, at the end of the day, they've known about the bug for over five months so I suspect they'll still get it handed to them.
I stopped in the Rogers store to get the fix. I waited for about 20 minutes while the customer support people (calling them "techs" wouldn't be accurate) installed the fix software on their in-store computers. Then I was told that the fix would wipe my phone. Did I have a backup? I said no; I haven't been able to find any evidence of Rogers-capable phone-sync software that works on my Mac (it's all Windows only).
That's one of the features of most Android phones. Your data has long been backed up unless you specifically disabled it. Your contacts, calendars, and gmails are all ready and waiting. After the update, your phone will automatically sync and your contacts, calendars, and gmails will be readily available.
You will have lost the following: SMS/MMS, ringtone preferences, non-core, per application preferences, all third party data not stored on your SD. Overall, not a big loss as the truly important stuff will immediately be available after the upgrade.
Future versions of Android (2.1 and later, IIRC) will allow for all application settings to be automatically backed up and restored.
In the mean time, checkout MyBackup and MyBackupPro if you want an additional backup solution.
No. The old synthetic diamond processes were only good for small diamonds, and some of them specifically can only create "diamond powder".
That's the widely held belief. I forget who, GE, IIRC, had a large research facility geared to creating large, real diamonds. Seems they even announced a public break-though allowing them to create jewelry sized diamonds, in any color. Immediately after the news broke, DeBeers personally flew to the states. A meeting was held with GE (IIRC GE). The next day the project was closed and nothing since has been heard.
Oddly enough, a similar flight took place to Arkansas, which still has a commercially viable diamond mine at the time. The day after he left the mine was shut down. It has not been commercially operated since. If you care, the diamond mine in Arkansas is open to the public for a small daily-use fee. Some people now plan their vacations there so as to mine diamonds for fun.
The traditional classification in the West, which goes back to the Ancient Greeks, begins with a distinction between precious and semi-precious stones; similar distinctions are made in other cultures. The precious stones are diamond, ruby, emerald and sapphire, with all other gemstones being semi-precious.[2] This distinction is unscientific and reflects the rarity of the respective stones in ancient times
That means if diamonds were to be classified today, they would be downgraded from "precious" to "semi-precious". Diamonds are not rare in the least. In fact, all planets are likely to have diamonds. All planets with geological activity, present or in the past, are likely to have diamonds on or near their surface.
I wish people would understand that the diamond market is completely artificially manipulated. Only industrial diamonds are mostly influenced by basic market supply and demand - but not completely. Diamonds which are used as precious stones have their supply tightly controlled so as to create artificial scarcity. Control on diamonds are so tightly controlled, in some countries (Africa), picking up a diamond without government permission (e.g. DeBeers) may result in execution on the spot. Think about that. If diamonds were so scarce, why would then need to specifically make legal provisions to allow for an extremely rare event of discovering a natural, rough diamond on the ground? Unless of course, they're not rare at all and diamonds really are commonly found simply laying on the ground. And people face execution because an unfeathered supply of diamonds to the market would crash their value over night.
There are few things in the modern times which have caused more pain, misery, death, and mass slavery than Diamonds and DeBeers. But to be clear, DeBeers is not alone here.
Few diamonds in the world, contrary to the conflict free marketing, are truly "blood-free", as as much as 60% of the "conflict free" diamonds are actually smuggled from "conflict zones". In other words, over half of every diamond you see in stores is there because of someone's murder, slavery (including children), and illegal imprisonment, torture, so on and so on.
So remember nothing says I love you like blood, summary executions, and slavery. Its not just a moto, its fact.
Slashdot Mirror
While its possible, its not likely against modern missiles. When the Likes of the F15 and MiG25 hit the scene, weapon designers started taking a second look. These days, its simply not likely unless engagement occurs at extremely long ranges.
Closing apps is also a choice available to the applications programmer. You can offer a "close" function in your app, it's just not necessary for most applications.
Just to bring this home, offing a "close" function does absolutely nothing. Android is under absolutely no obligation to actually "close" the app. In fact, it doesn't. It simply marks the application as the best candidate to be reaped when memory is required. In this way, Android attempts to cache applications, saving another load from flash in case the application is required again. On low memory devices the reap may immediate take place, but its likely it would already happen because a terminating activity is already marked as being ripe for reaping.
There is an exception here, but its for services. Services which are no longer required are no longer spawned and their life cycle is no longer managed. Services are what are commonly abused by developers. As such, its important for developers to properly ("request" to) terminate their services and to not start persistent services unless they really require it to persist. For example, a weather application periodically grabs updates. Even when updates are disabled, they still run their service. Furthermore, periodic updates don't require a persistent service. Surprisingly, many common and popular weather applications have these bugs - or don't allow updates to be disabled.
Only the executable part of an Android application has to reside in the primary flash storage (still a ridiculous restriction to have designed in however).
Your comments are laughably ignorant. This restriction exists because security is important. To not have this restriction is to not have a security model. Apple doesn't have this problem because you can't exchange your flash - and THAT'S ridiculous in this day and age.
Doesn't negate the fact that comparing Android to iPhone OS 3.2 will be like night and day in terms of the software available and how it works in terms of ease of use.
I agree and so does many consumers; including those iPhone holders moving to Android. There's a reason why Droid grabbed Time's #1 gadget spot, placing the iPhone in the #4 slot. If the iphone was so much better, this would have never happened; especially in a general consumer magazine.
Multitasking is all very well, but having to open a task killer application to kill off background apps to free up memory is tiresome.
Proof that you're not an Android user because not such need exists. This is a common lie told by iphone wanna-bes. The truth is, such applications do exist but knowledgeable people laugh at idiots who use these apps because they not only break other applications but they contribute to the very cause they claim to help. Other developers absolutely hate these applications because they generate bug reports for other developers. Made worse, many complain of reduced battery life, which makes sense as these applications must poll to obtain their task/process information.
If you are a real Android user, which I doubt, and want a real solution, stop installing shit applications on your phone. Only install applications which properly understand resource management per the Android framework. To understand this, a developer need only read two whole pages of documentation. If a developer is too stupid and/or lazy to do this, they don't deserve a spot on your phone.
In short, applications like task killer are a waste of money preying on the ignorance of users who would rather purchase another application than actually take responsibility for the applications they have installed. My phone doesn't have a task killer, nor does it need one, and I'm running a G1 with over 60 apps installed. This is basically the low end of Android devices. If my phone doesn't need a task killer, no Android device does. Period. If you feel you really need a task killer application, YOU screwed up - at least twice!
All apps should quit when closed unless they need to run in the background, if they need to check periodically for tweets, email, etc, the underlying Linux has cron.
Yet another dope complaining about their own ignorance. Android manages the entire life cycle of every application and service. The problem is too many developers are improperly starting persistent services and forcefully starting at boot, which is causing trashing. And users are more than happy to keep these applications install despite the obvious degradation in performance. The solution? Don't install shitty applications on your phone and then hide shitty apps with yet another application which causes an endless stream of yet more problems for so many other applications and developers.
If an application starts at boot and it can not be disabled, THAT'S A BUG! If an application runs a persistent service and does not require it to persist, THAT'S A BUG! If an application periodically wakes for updates and does not provide a mechanism to turn off periodic updates, THAT'S A BUG!
At the end of the day, if you insist on running poorly written applications on your device, that's a bug! The only solution is for you not to have anything to do with computers.
The iPad looks immensely compelling as a pick-up-and-use device that I don't have to think about, that does all of the things I wan
Sure wish the trolls would go back under their bridge. The fact that so many Apple trolls are working so hard pretty means they admit Android is superior; else why work so hard to FUD it? Exactly.
For example, app developers on Android can publish without approval, but so can malware developers.
This is true for Apple too. The difference is its easier and costs less to develop for Android. Android is open. Apple is closed. Apple's vetting service is not necessarily in place to prevent trojans. Its in place to protect their property; which is the iPhone its running on. Its hardly unreasonable to believe a trojan can make it past Apple. The only difference is, you'd have to be more ballsy to try.
Basically your position boils down to freedom is bad. People can come up to you and kill you right now so your argument is that no one should have that freedom. Sure its illegal, but they have the freedom to do so. They can freely obtain weapons. They can freely travel to your location. No free society is completely safe. To be clear, this is not a threat - just making a point. The point being, a free society has an inherent risk and certain responsibilities are therefore assumed.
Not to mention, Android limits the amount of disk space for installable apps to something less than 256MB. You can forget about apps that require a large local database, or other large apps like games.
Not true. Even pragmatically its not true. The limits can be changed. But, your comment is completely ignoring the fact that applications are encouraged to use external storage for content. Only absolute dolts would consider 16GB-32GB (and growing) to be a serious limit for a hand held device. Realistically, you're not likely to find an Android application which uses more than a couple dozen MB of internal storage, whereby the rest is deferred to external storage. Just because Android is different and purposely encourages a superior solution doesn't make it bad.
Contrary to your assertions, different is not bad. Freedom is not bad. With freedom comes personal responsibility. It seems in addition to hating freedom, you personally refuse to accept any type of responsibility. In a free society you have that right - but it still makes you useless to society.
Ridiculous! How many SAM generations came during that time?
You call into question the number of generations out one side of your mouth and point out the duration of a single generation out the other. Somehow the irony seems to have been missed.
There hasn't been very many generations. Period. Second of all, in order to create a generation which can counter, you generally have to know what it is you're countering. At best they have a lot of speculation. Third of all, the math doesn't even make sense. Why spend billions creating new target/trigger mechanisms to counter a threat which your not likely to see for at least a decade and immediately know little to nothing about. Fourth, had they started a generation to counter a threat, at that time, they would have no clue what is it they are suppose to counter, and even if they did, the technology gap (counter the counter) between then and how is likely to be huge.
And what are they good for, truly? To carry cruise missiles?
No, dropping bombs. Imagine that, a bomber dropping bombs. Who would of thought. The fact that you're one, confused about its primary role, and two, still have no clue what a bomber is used for, pretty well puts and end to the discussion. Why your comment has been modded up is beyond me.
I think it's going to take a similar catastrophe to move us past the idea of manned combat aircraft.
Not likely. Right now there are some serious limitations to unmanned fighters. The likes of the F22 and F35 are likely to be the last of their kind but they are expected to be in service for the next thirty to fifty years. The fact their anticipated service life is so long pretty well implies that not only do our unmanned fighters have a very long way to do, but that everyone else has a vastly farther distance to travel. Take a serious look around at technological capabilities of other countries. The only countries likely to be able to field an unmanned fighter capable of providing a serious threat to an F22 or F35 is likely to be our ally and even still, likely to be at least a decade away. And that decade could easily be two or more. Aside from Russia, its likely to be a decade or two before another fighter poses a significant air risk to eh F22 and F35, let alone an unmanned vehicle. Furthermore, its extremely unlikely that the first generation of unmanned fighters will be a significant threat to planes like the F22 and F35 because of high latencies between CnC and the aircraft which means some type of advanced AI is going to be required to compensate - and even still, they must first be able to find the aircraft to even engage.
Long story short, you post may be "interesting", but its interesting in the same way any other fiction is.
Actually you are. I've watched documentary of the F15 pilots which engaged the targets. They were retreating the aircraft to Iran.
a few helicopters were seen but no fighters flew to fight against coalition aircraft.[citation needed]
Basically the statement is only half correct. And note, its stating a quotation is needed; which I absolutely agree because it misleads idiots like you. There was also some question about the pilot's origins. Which is to say, some believed it possible the pilots were actually Iranian, but I don't believe that was ever confirmed one way or the other.
Also note, there is a difference between, "flew to fight against" and "retreating to Iran."
Dipshit.
Maybe, maybe not.
The answer is absolutely yes. They started engineering stealth aircraft before the Soviet Union collapsed. They have maintained their program in a drastically reduced capacity until such times they can afford to ramp it back up. They found a partner which allowed them to continue their efforts on a reduced budget.
In absolutely terms, their efforts never stopped. The F22 did not spur this plane. Rather, the F117 spurred it on, which is very much in the midst of the cold war.
Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also,
No idea why you think that. The F117 was basically designed during the 70s and heavily based on prototypes developed during the late 60s. Its shape is heavily derived based on computational limitations of the period. Keep in mind, much of the math was still done on slide rules and less computing power than a 386. Because of this, specific flight profiles are required to maintain radar stealth. In certain aspects, the aircraft is visible on radar. In short, it is not an all aspect stealth aircraft. And once you get close enough, even a radar lock becomes possible.
Modern stealth is designed with new materials and supercomputers. These aircraft maintain stealth at all aspects. Outside of afterburners, even their heat signature is lower than that of the F117. Simply put, the F117 is a dinosaur by modern equivalents. Hell, the F117 basically has clusters of 486s and the F22 has a couple of "super computers." Even from on-board computational capabilities, there's not comparison.
As far as I know, all F22 pilots are F15 pilots. One F22 can take out a squadron of F15s and typically never be seen. Its greatest limitation is weapon payload. Which is to say, a single F22 will run out of ammo before it can even become a target. IIRC, the best public record indicates a 14+:1 kill ratio, or better, with the F22:F15. And keep in mind, the F15 has NEVER been shot down in actual air to air combat. And yes, there has been air to air engagements.
The F15 pilots, after their mock engagements made it very clear that even after they were able to get directly on the tail of the F22, they generally couldn't obtain a lock or after doing so, the lock was quickly lost. Furthermore, because of the huge maneuverability advantages of the F22, it was almost impossible to stay on the F22's tail for any length of time. Some F22 kills were scored but by far, that was the exception rather than the rule. And keep in mind, we're talking about the creme de la creme of fighter pilots sitting in those F15s.
As for your bomb comment, that too is not accurate. That's exactly why all munitions are carried internally. Modern aircraft maintain stealth throughout all stages of flight EXCEPT for actual weapon release. The F22 is capable of releasing missiles inverted and in high G turns because they are mounted on hydraulic rams. They are basically catapulted off the aircraft. This means they can engage targets in aspects and during maneuvers which are impossible with other aircraft. And its only during the actual release that the weapon bay opens. So the window in which stealth is compromised is extremely limited. And the fact that they can super cruise away immediately after engagement means within seconds they are once again phantoms.
Simply put, the number of counties which can even offer an F15-quality of air resistance is extremely tiny and most of them are our allies. Make no bones about it, modern stealth aircraft are light years beyond the poky F117's capabilities in every measurable way possible. To say they have taken a step backwards is completely baseless and in no way accurate.
I'm not even sure why there's a supposed role for fighters any more anyway. When's the last time a plane was downed by another plane, rather than being bombed on or shot from the ground?
Invasion of Iraq is the most recent engagement.
How do you think those bombers get to their target? What do you think a fighter's job is? When bombers go in, fighters intercept. To intercept the fighters you must have fighters. Just watch a WWII movie and the concept is pretty easy to figure out. The basic concept really hasn't changed since WWI. So long as conflict exists, the need for fighters continue to exist.
The problem is the Android framework requires the use of services for any nontrivial background task. The issue with this is, many developers are not managing their service's life cycle properly.
Yes, focus is required when you read. Had you done so properly, you wouldn't have had to post the question.
a citation about the Apple OS limit would be nice.
I need a citation that Apple doesn't have a limit? Holy shit! IIRC, its actually something like 256MB or 512MB, but it really doesn't matter. Which is to say, the limit is so high it doesn't matter for the vast majority of applications. As such, it doesn't have a limit worth mention.
ALL of which is aside the point since you seemingly can't read. Hell, just reading your quote its extremely obvious what the hell is going on - so yes, do focus when you read and stop bothering people with things which have long been answered.
But if you have a question which hasn't already been answered, I will make an honest effort to answer.
AC is right! Mod this up.
The response should include the geographic information and/or a priority which the resolver and/or client can use to determine best record for use.
Its important for people to understand that geographic locality does NOT always mean shortest/fastest/lowest latency path. For example, did a trace route between me, my brother, and friend. Brother lives in neighboring town while friend lives several states away. The result, friend is 9 hops away. My brother, who is in the next town, is 16 hops and higher latency. Now, if we substitute brother and friend with server a and b, they'd be forcing me to use the worst path (highest latency, most hops). This exactly also holds true for games. Rarely would we all find game servers to play on where all three had equal standing based on latency.
Locality is not everything they pretend it to be.
if a woman is raped and you see it happen, no matter what you say the rapist will never be charged if the victim does not want to file charges.
Unless, of course, the rapist is her husband. Many states now have mandatory arrest for spousal abuse. Its nice to know rapists are better protected than spouses.
I'm curious what those applications are, which keep you tethered?
Yes, but who the frak wants an OS that gives 'applications' only 16MB of RAM to run in? Google it yourself if you don't believe me.
Please stop trolling ignorance and FUD. Android proper has no such limit. The limit is set by the hardware manufacturer to prevent a single application from consuming the lion share of memory on a low end (relative to desktop), memory constrained device. Thusly a device with a gig of RAM would have a much larger threshold.
To be absolutely clear, because so many Apple trolls seem to be in a rush to spew ignorance, Android has no such limit. Period. End of discussion. Pragmatically, hardware manufacturers set such limit to ensure quality of operation. Apple's OS doesn't have such a limit because its already extremely limited in that it can't multitask third party software. Since by design a single application can consume the entire device, making such limits don't make sense. But when you have a device, where by design allows for multitasking, you must make such limits to ensure a good user experience.
In short, trolling that Android has a 16MB limit is like screaming to the world you understand exactly how limited and how little control you have on Apple's platform; while ignoring the fact that "Android's limit", is not true.
That's not completely true. Right now the infrastructure in the US is dramatically lacking. Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason why Picken's wind farm effort died. In order for him to deliver the required power would require an additional investment of almost double his cost to produce the power in the first place. He wound up selling off a good chunk of turbines because he couldn't place his already reduced order on the grid, on his farms.
Anything which places additional significant pressures on existing infrastructure is going to demand huge investments in new and improved infrastructure. There's no way around it. Shifting energy delivery from fuel trucks to electrical grid is likely to easily outstrip peak capacity. Remember, many markets already exceed peak capacity during summer loads. Furthermore, building additional, conventional plants is a time consuming process. This means the likely source of peak power until new nuclear, gas, and coal plants can come online will from various solar and wind. To allow for solar and wind to come on line, new infrastructure is absolutely required. No ifs, ands, or buts. Its just not realistic to believe all charging will be deferred to non-peak hours.
Obviously using a slow charge deployment will help defer infrastructure improvements but the piper must still be paid. The only question is, will that cost be paid out over three to five years or more slowly over the next ten to twenty.
No. You can buy motors with the cooling already in place.
My understanding is that its not technically difficult either. You can use convective cooling inside the motor using a electrically neutral (mineral) oil, much like they do for transformers. This combined with air flow can offload considerable heat and without any moving parts or significant increase in weight. The only requirement is that up remain up.
Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs. It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck. By that, I mean:
* Expensive per watt
* Short lifespans
* Inefficient
There are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air. Here's just a couple of my favorites.
You seem very knowledgeable. Which is to say, you've easily surpassed my ignorant bullshit detector on the subject matter. ;) Perhaps you'd care to speculate, wildly even, as to why big names such as IBM and the DOE would will be willing to heavily invest so many cycles into Lithium-air if the base technology sucks so badly. Does the fact that they're willing to invest in this technology hint they have some significant reasons to believe this technology trumps existing efforts? Or is it possible the applicable patent portfolio is more open with this given technology and its strictly a business/patent decision. If its the later, it still strikes me as odd because who cares if they can patent a crap-technology if they can't build a business model around it?
At any rate, please speculate away...
Also, are you a chemist? Do you work in the energy storage field?
Because this is a game charging technology, if it pans out.
There, fixed that for you. :)
Bad example. If I by a subsidized computer, I wouldn't expect to do whatever I want with it until my contract term is up. Funny that's pretty much how things work.
Having said that, I think its downright silly that everyone works so hard to prevent root access. As palm has likely shown, I doubt allowing root access has suddenly created a huge support issue.
I guess its more about control to limit people from tethering and whatnot.
By comparison, Palm not only has root available on all their WebOS phones,
That's what developer phones like the ADP1 and Nexus One are for. The ADP1/N1 comes with both root and the engineering boot loader which readily allows for installing alternate images. On the N1, such features is available on every device.
So what was your point again?
Let me get this straight - whoever figured this out has a mobile phone which has an issue with the firmware which can cause it to crash horribly when making an emergency call.
The fix has been available for over five months. Most every Android device in the world has the fix except for Roger's customers. Of those customers, all users which have installed alternate firmware have long had the fix. So basically Rogers is also disabling service for users who have long been ahead of Rogers.
I believe I remember reading that someone's phone did recently crash during a 911 call and that they died. This is likely why Rogers is being so draconian about the update. Of course, at the end of the day, they've known about the bug for over five months so I suspect they'll still get it handed to them.
I stopped in the Rogers store to get the fix. I waited for about 20 minutes while the customer support people (calling them "techs" wouldn't be accurate) installed the fix software on their in-store computers. Then I was told that the fix would wipe my phone. Did I have a backup? I said no; I haven't been able to find any evidence of Rogers-capable phone-sync software that works on my Mac (it's all Windows only).
That's one of the features of most Android phones. Your data has long been backed up unless you specifically disabled it. Your contacts, calendars, and gmails are all ready and waiting. After the update, your phone will automatically sync and your contacts, calendars, and gmails will be readily available.
You will have lost the following: SMS/MMS, ringtone preferences, non-core, per application preferences, all third party data not stored on your SD. Overall, not a big loss as the truly important stuff will immediately be available after the upgrade.
Future versions of Android (2.1 and later, IIRC) will allow for all application settings to be automatically backed up and restored.
In the mean time, checkout MyBackup and MyBackupPro if you want an additional backup solution.
No. The old synthetic diamond processes were only good for small diamonds, and some of them specifically can only create "diamond powder".
That's the widely held belief. I forget who, GE, IIRC, had a large research facility geared to creating large, real diamonds. Seems they even announced a public break-though allowing them to create jewelry sized diamonds, in any color. Immediately after the news broke, DeBeers personally flew to the states. A meeting was held with GE (IIRC GE). The next day the project was closed and nothing since has been heard.
Oddly enough, a similar flight took place to Arkansas, which still has a commercially viable diamond mine at the time. The day after he left the mine was shut down. It has not been commercially operated since. If you care, the diamond mine in Arkansas is open to the public for a small daily-use fee. Some people now plan their vacations there so as to mine diamonds for fun.
From Wikipedia:
The traditional classification in the West, which goes back to the Ancient Greeks, begins with a distinction between precious and semi-precious stones; similar distinctions are made in other cultures. The precious stones are diamond, ruby, emerald and sapphire, with all other gemstones being semi-precious.[2] This distinction is unscientific and reflects the rarity of the respective stones in ancient times
That means if diamonds were to be classified today, they would be downgraded from "precious" to "semi-precious". Diamonds are not rare in the least. In fact, all planets are likely to have diamonds. All planets with geological activity, present or in the past, are likely to have diamonds on or near their surface.
I wish people would understand that the diamond market is completely artificially manipulated. Only industrial diamonds are mostly influenced by basic market supply and demand - but not completely. Diamonds which are used as precious stones have their supply tightly controlled so as to create artificial scarcity. Control on diamonds are so tightly controlled, in some countries (Africa), picking up a diamond without government permission (e.g. DeBeers) may result in execution on the spot. Think about that. If diamonds were so scarce, why would then need to specifically make legal provisions to allow for an extremely rare event of discovering a natural, rough diamond on the ground? Unless of course, they're not rare at all and diamonds really are commonly found simply laying on the ground. And people face execution because an unfeathered supply of diamonds to the market would crash their value over night.
There are few things in the modern times which have caused more pain, misery, death, and mass slavery than Diamonds and DeBeers. But to be clear, DeBeers is not alone here.
Few diamonds in the world, contrary to the conflict free marketing, are truly "blood-free", as as much as 60% of the "conflict free" diamonds are actually smuggled from "conflict zones". In other words, over half of every diamond you see in stores is there because of someone's murder, slavery (including children), and illegal imprisonment, torture, so on and so on.
So remember nothing says I love you like blood, summary executions, and slavery. Its not just a moto, its fact.