I may add to the parent's post that the best way to wreck the cameras would be from a vehicle with a false license plate with something like a paintball gun. That is, if you want to avoid getting caught.
Yep, that's the one. The "doctor killer" issues didn't have to do with the handling of the configuration itself -- rather, they were due to the fact that the tail design was modified early in production, and was inadequately braced (increased in size without reconfiguring structure). This occasionally caused the tail to fail in turbulent conditions.
How hard can it be to build miniature (footprint of wheelchair), remote-controlled tanks with a bunch of cameras all around it, lethal and nonlethal armaments, and a big booming microphone so it can bark orders?
Making them that small would just be silly. A trap (either a ditch across a road, ensnaring cables, deadfall, etc) could be easily designed to stop them but let humans and larger vehicles pass. Once they're trapped, flammable fluid of choice could be used to good effect.
The Germans discovered a long time ago that a tank whose commander kept his hatch open and himself exposed to fire was FAR more capable in combat than a tank whose commander hid inside the armour shell most of the time.
They also learned how effective a Molotov cocktail was against the tanks of the day during the Warsaw Uprising. Those unfortunate enough to survive either ended up at POWs clearing unexploded shells, or occasionally dangling from lampposts.
It's a V-tail. It's lighter and more aerodynamic than a normal tail. Also it is less visable for radar. But it's more complex to control which isn't an issue for a computer controlled plane.
Not that hard for a human to control, either. You just need a "mixer" that makes the yoke move both surfaces together and the rudder pedals move them in opposition. I think Beech Bonanzas among other civilian aircraft had v-tails.
Fire and forget missiles, torpedoes, they're all simple robots that kill, it's just that they do so after a human pulls the trigger so they seem little different from bullets.
The drones might be better in that regard, since they can be recalled even after launch. Apparently, with ICBMs and nuclear cruise missiles, once they were launched, even those who launched them couldn't destroy them. (Thinking how badly it would suck to be down in a bunker having just launched ICBMs, only to find out it was on false warning a minute later.)
"Longer halflife" isn't all bad. It means that the rate of decay and thus the rate of radiation emission are lower. Something with a 14 bln. yr. halflife is unlikely to be very harmful due to radioactivity, though it may be a chemical poison.
Could one design a small, well-shielded radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RITEG) that'll fulfill the specs? It could put out nearly constant power for 100 years or so. Not sure if it can be made to be under 1kg AND put out a decent amount of power (and be well shielded) though.
That must be why its reached near ubiquity. It's a dreadful hack that works, and is everywhere.
If there's a Better Way, namely assigning everyone an IP, why should we use a substandard technology. There's no good reason why NAT needs to exist in 2007. And the easy/cheap availability of routable fixed IP addresses can only be a good thing for geeks.
A firewall in IPv6 will actually be easier to design since it doesn't have to do NAT. It can still block incoming and outgoing connections on selected ports as well as filtering traffic. In fact, that's how organizations with class A or B allocations do it now.
The Government felt that criminals were getting away because jurys could not agree on a verdict, so they changed the law.
Interestingly, British law as regards juries was already less favorable to the accused than most US law. In Britain, a judge could basically instruct a jury to convict. In the US, a stunt like that would certainly result in a mistrial and likely result in the judge being kicked off the bench.
Problem is, the judge decided to accept a majority verdict
Then the problem is with the system -- it's often been the case that a lone juror or two saw something that others didn't and caused an innocent person not to go to prison. In something as important as a criminal trial, the standards must remain very high. (And, sorry: I come from a part of the US that accepts only unanimous verdicts in criminal trials -- actually, most of the US is like that and I'd assumed that Britain was the same way.)
I don't think anyone would blame Linux for a physically broken Notebook.
People are funny -- they'll think: isn't that the OS that they put on cheap crappy computers? A lot of people don't differentiate the computer hardware from the OS -- they think of computers as Windows, Macs, or Linuxes.
A used notebook is going to be used, abused, and worn out. Even the much-vaunted Thinkpads are not indestructible, and the notebooks that sell at the prices you mention are going to be more than 3 years old, and completely out of date.
I've spent $220 and $350 respectively on my last two notebooks. They may be out of date, but they work fine for office stuff, on-site troubleshooting, and graphics editing. And neither of the two was particularly beat up when I bought them.
And, BTW, where can I find a good used Powerbook (I assume G4) for ~$400? I kind of want one again but I can't seem to find any good cheap used ones.
Not to sound negative, but why would I want Linux on a high-end gaming rig?
Um, features aren't the issue here. Lack of quality and durability is -- I actually use my laptop as a portable, meaning that I throw it in a backpack and take it to client sites, put said backpacks on train luggage racks and have had stuff dumped on top. So far, it's survived more or less intact. I don't think that a flimsy Inspiron would do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the only way to fight back is to FIGHT.
-b.
Yep, that's the one. The "doctor killer" issues didn't have to do with the handling of the configuration itself -- rather, they were due to the fact that the tail design was modified early in production, and was inadequately braced (increased in size without reconfiguring structure). This occasionally caused the tail to fail in turbulent conditions.
-b.
Or use a small, high-flying drone with no payload other than fuel. Fly it into the prop or engine intake (if it's a turbofan). F.O.D., anyone?
Iraq was one of the more secular states in the Gulf before the 1990s. If you want *scary*, see Saudi Arabia...
-b.
Making them that small would just be silly. A trap (either a ditch across a road, ensnaring cables, deadfall, etc) could be easily designed to stop them but let humans and larger vehicles pass. Once they're trapped, flammable fluid of choice could be used to good effect.
-b.
They also learned how effective a Molotov cocktail was against the tanks of the day during the Warsaw Uprising. Those unfortunate enough to survive either ended up at POWs clearing unexploded shells, or occasionally dangling from lampposts.
-b.
Not that hard for a human to control, either. You just need a "mixer" that makes the yoke move both surfaces together and the rudder pedals move them in opposition. I think Beech Bonanzas among other civilian aircraft had v-tails.
-b.
War shouldn't become too safe nor easy for one side. If it does, it ceases to be an option of last resort as it should be.
-b.
The drones might be better in that regard, since they can be recalled even after launch. Apparently, with ICBMs and nuclear cruise missiles, once they were launched, even those who launched them couldn't destroy them. (Thinking how badly it would suck to be down in a bunker having just launched ICBMs, only to find out it was on false warning a minute later.)
-b.
Unfortunately insightful (I'm from NY). The only way to fight a more advanced and wealthy foe is to fight dirty, and fight dirty they will :(
-b.
Or two-segment cruise missiles...
-b.
Straight wings, turboprop engine. Wonder how well they'll do against a good shoulder-fired SAM.
-b.
"Longer halflife" isn't all bad. It means that the rate of decay and thus the rate of radiation emission are lower. Something with a 14 bln. yr. halflife is unlikely to be very harmful due to radioactivity, though it may be a chemical poison.
-b.
Why was he an "idiot"? He was obviously still alive when you took over, so he didn't end up blowing himself up or poisoning himself.
BTW- Thorium oxide is actually quite boring, and you can buy it commercially since it's used for the flame mantles of gas lanterns.
Personally, I resent Nannie State telling me what good little boys can buy and what they can't...
-b.
-b.
War and brutality existed LONG before gunpowder and guns were ever invented.
If there's a Better Way, namely assigning everyone an IP, why should we use a substandard technology. There's no good reason why NAT needs to exist in 2007. And the easy/cheap availability of routable fixed IP addresses can only be a good thing for geeks.
-b.
NAT is a dreadful hack.
-b.
I think that he means increase the number of octets in IPv4 without introducing some of the complications of IPv6 like mandatory IPSEC.
-b.
A firewall in IPv6 will actually be easier to design since it doesn't have to do NAT. It can still block incoming and outgoing connections on selected ports as well as filtering traffic. In fact, that's how organizations with class A or B allocations do it now.
-b.
Interestingly, British law as regards juries was already less favorable to the accused than most US law. In Britain, a judge could basically instruct a jury to convict. In the US, a stunt like that would certainly result in a mistrial and likely result in the judge being kicked off the bench.
-b.
Then the problem is with the system -- it's often been the case that a lone juror or two saw something that others didn't and caused an innocent person not to go to prison. In something as important as a criminal trial, the standards must remain very high. (And, sorry: I come from a part of the US that accepts only unanimous verdicts in criminal trials -- actually, most of the US is like that and I'd assumed that Britain was the same way.)
-b.
People are funny -- they'll think: isn't that the OS that they put on cheap crappy computers? A lot of people don't differentiate the computer hardware from the OS -- they think of computers as Windows, Macs, or Linuxes.
-b.
I've spent $220 and $350 respectively on my last two notebooks. They may be out of date, but they work fine for office stuff, on-site troubleshooting, and graphics editing. And neither of the two was particularly beat up when I bought them.
And, BTW, where can I find a good used Powerbook (I assume G4) for ~$400? I kind of want one again but I can't seem to find any good cheap used ones.
-b.
Um, features aren't the issue here. Lack of quality and durability is -- I actually use my laptop as a portable, meaning that I throw it in a backpack and take it to client sites, put said backpacks on train luggage racks and have had stuff dumped on top. So far, it's survived more or less intact. I don't think that a flimsy Inspiron would do the same.
-b.