Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants.
Incorrect. The AMRAAM uses active terminal guidance, NOT SARH. Depending on flight profile, you feed it the current estimated target position and range (either from onboard passive or downlink from elsewhere), and fire it off. You can apply midcourse correction if you want/need. The missile will then activate it's own active radar emitter for terminal guidance.
A second drawback of many TVs is decreased chroma resolution; while some will output pixel-perfect just like a regular monitor, many are stuck working internally in 4:2:0 somewhere in the image processing pipeline.
The two work by different methods. In the case of RAM, reducing the temperature lowers the leakage current of the capacitors in DRAM that actually store your bits, increasing the time before the charge drops below a detectable level (i.e. increasing the time before the data becomes unreadable).
In the case of HDDs, freezing them causes metal components to shrink slightly, so any seized bearings may be freed up for long enough to recover data.
You recall somewhat incorrectly. The F-117 was designed with radar and IR stealth in mind, but limitations in simulation (both computerised and by hand) at the time lead to it's faceted design. The B-2 was similarly designed, but with the aid of computer modelling to allow curves, making it more aerodynamic. The F-22 was designed to be stealthy, reducing radar cross-section through use of surface materials, internal bays and inlet design, but the overriding design criteria were for performance, not stealth. Thus, the B-2 (a huge plane) has a smaller radar cross-section than the physically smaller F-22. It is a similar case for the F-35, except it was designed for forward-aspect stealth, at the expense of all-aspect stealth (i.e. you may not see it coming, but there's a good chance you'd see it going if you were still around).
Then there aircraft with 'accidental' stealth, like the old YB-49 to which the B-2 bears a startling resemblance. There's a may-or-may-not-be-apocryphal story that Jack Northrop, designer of the XB-35/YB-49 (among other flying wings) was shown a model of the B-2, a black project at the time, on his death-bed, due to the contributions he made to the design of the flying wing.
Sure, but you still end up with decrypted content at the client end, so it's just as vulnerable as having the key stored locally (and you'd still have to cache it locally anyway).
So, most of the cameras are either broken or dummies, the vast majority of the rest are recorded at 1 fps with 4 cameras to a 320x240 MJPEG file, and none of these are networked to any centralised agency. Maybe 1% - or a fraction of - are both of useful quality, externally directable, and remotely addressable from a central agency or location.
Yeah, we've got a lot of surveillance. But it's almost all shit surveillance.
From the horse's mouth itself (the Windows 8 certification guidelines, specifically System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot para.17):
Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following: It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
Separately (Para.18):
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv.
Not only can you turn Secure Boot off (and add your own keys to the bootloader) for x86 devices, the end user MUST be able to do so in order to gain Windows 8 certification. No end-user configuration, no shiny windows sticker on the box (or windows pre-installation in the case of OEM systems).
And I still do not understand how Microsoft get to control this.
For anything x86 based; they don't. They expressly require OEMs (and onyone else producing motherboards with a little Windows 8 sticker on the box) to allow the end user to add their own Secure Boot keys, as well as insert Microsoft's key. No end-user modification, no certification.
So what are various Linux distros getting bootloaders signed by Microsoft? Because they assume users are not competent enough to enter keys manually. Thus, they ask Microsoft (or take advantage of the service Microsoft offers) to sign their bootloader with Microsoft's preloaded key.
Why not just use a shockwatch and stick it on the outside? That's what they're for, and having one obviously visible is certainyl more of a deterrant to mistreatment than a normal 'handle with care' sticker.
Wait, hang on, do mobile networks in the US allow you to use data without that already being included in your contract BEFORE siwtching you over to a contract with a data connection? Because in the UK, I can put a voice & text only (well, and WAP if you're a masochist) SIM into an iPhone, and it simply won't be able to pull down data even if I ask it to.
On the 'smartphone users need more support' side of things: just don't offer support for phones not purchased through the carrier. That seems like the standard way to do things here.
Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
How do public showings of private copies (e.g. a store bought Blu Ray shown to a neighbourhood on a big projection screen) fall under this simplified view of copyright? You're not distributing it, but lots of people are viewing it.
but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures.
Heck no! Human beings will repeatedly make mistakes of logic (e.g. the Sunk Costs fallacy) because the brain is wired by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to be very good at making snap judgements that are correct most of the time over considering a problem fully to account for edge cases. Unfortunately, things like currency are edge cases in the savannah environment.
Hell yes! The primary utility of an asteroid is that it is not on the surface of the Earth; you don't have to expend truly ludicrous amounts of energy to drag it out of a gravity well.
Close, but not quite. Each pixel is made up of hundreds to tens of thousands of these nanoscale spheres.
It's a similar mistake that people who are only used to discrete displays (e.g. LCDs) make when first working with CRTs: a CRT phosphor triad is not a pixel; a pixel will likely cover several triads. It certainly took me a bit before this finally clicked.
Without that basic tenet, only those of independent wealth would have the means to create and we would lose an entire segment of professional creative people.
It's such a shame that, prior to the Berne Convention, there were no career musicians or painters in the world, and certainly none who were not also independently wealthy. Nope, none at all. Never happened.
HOLY SHIT. That is massively higher than most of the threshold theories (that I've read) posited. You'd have to chow down on an exorbitant amount of Fukishima grown produce (or fish caught nearby the runoff areas) to even come close to approaching 100mSv.
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
They did. Even prior to the hydrogen explosions, I was following the IAEA and NISA reports on exactly what was going on, complete with regularly updated radiation levels for various sampling stations.
However, if all you're getting in media reports is fearmongering over THIS NUMBER IS 100 TIMES BIGGER THAN THIS OTHER NUMBER! (and neglecting to mention the units, let alone a helpful comparison to commonly encountered levels of radiation) you'd be forgiven for thinking that the people who know what's going on aren't telling anyone. They are, it's simply that nobody is bothering to listen (and think).
The "touch" element is just a film on top of the screen surface. You can simply skip sticking the film on top of the screen
Adhering the touch layer is hardly simple, but almost beside the point: many modern touchscreens are actually integral to the display panel, rather than a discrete layer. It cuts down significantly on internal reflections be eliminating laminates and moving the actual pixel layer closer to the surface of the cover glass.
When we can consistently produce defect-free carbon nanotubes in much longer lengths than is currently possible. Space elevators require near the upper end of CN theoretical tensile strength.
Bolos, Skyhooks and Rotovators on the other hand...
The end result in both cases is a higher price... for no purpose at all.
Not necessarily. Manufacturing at economics-of-scale level has some weird idiosyncrasies. For example, it's cheaper to pay a few pennies more per panel to put touchscreens in every model in order to save the cost of having two production processes set up in order to make models with and without touchscreens (which would either require a totally different lid moulding, or manufacture of a separate mechanical shim to take up the extra room and prevent flex). Additionally, it may become more economical, for similar reasons, for panel manufactures to package all their panels with integrated touchscreens rather than running production lines for two models. This would make the purchase price of touchscreen panels drop below that of non-touch panels.
Slashdot Mirror
Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants.
Incorrect. The AMRAAM uses active terminal guidance, NOT SARH. Depending on flight profile, you feed it the current estimated target position and range (either from onboard passive or downlink from elsewhere), and fire it off. You can apply midcourse correction if you want/need. The missile will then activate it's own active radar emitter for terminal guidance.
A second drawback of many TVs is decreased chroma resolution; while some will output pixel-perfect just like a regular monitor, many are stuck working internally in 4:2:0 somewhere in the image processing pipeline.
The two work by different methods.
In the case of RAM, reducing the temperature lowers the leakage current of the capacitors in DRAM that actually store your bits, increasing the time before the charge drops below a detectable level (i.e. increasing the time before the data becomes unreadable).
In the case of HDDs, freezing them causes metal components to shrink slightly, so any seized bearings may be freed up for long enough to recover data.
You recall somewhat incorrectly. The F-117 was designed with radar and IR stealth in mind, but limitations in simulation (both computerised and by hand) at the time lead to it's faceted design. The B-2 was similarly designed, but with the aid of computer modelling to allow curves, making it more aerodynamic. The F-22 was designed to be stealthy, reducing radar cross-section through use of surface materials, internal bays and inlet design, but the overriding design criteria were for performance, not stealth. Thus, the B-2 (a huge plane) has a smaller radar cross-section than the physically smaller F-22. It is a similar case for the F-35, except it was designed for forward-aspect stealth, at the expense of all-aspect stealth (i.e. you may not see it coming, but there's a good chance you'd see it going if you were still around).
Then there aircraft with 'accidental' stealth, like the old YB-49 to which the B-2 bears a startling resemblance. There's a may-or-may-not-be-apocryphal story that Jack Northrop, designer of the XB-35/YB-49 (among other flying wings) was shown a model of the B-2, a black project at the time, on his death-bed, due to the contributions he made to the design of the flying wing.
Then you break the path of trust at the unencrypted end of the BCI chip.
Sure, but you still end up with decrypted content at the client end, so it's just as vulnerable as having the key stored locally (and you'd still have to cache it locally anyway).
as much video surveillance as London
So, most of the cameras are either broken or dummies, the vast majority of the rest are recorded at 1 fps with 4 cameras to a 320x240 MJPEG file, and none of these are networked to any centralised agency. Maybe 1% - or a fraction of - are both of useful quality, externally directable, and remotely addressable from a central agency or location.
Yeah, we've got a lot of surveillance. But it's almost all shit surveillance.
Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following: It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
Separately (Para.18):
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv.
Not only can you turn Secure Boot off (and add your own keys to the bootloader) for x86 devices, the end user MUST be able to do so in order to gain Windows 8 certification. No end-user configuration, no shiny windows sticker on the box (or windows pre-installation in the case of OEM systems).
And I still do not understand how Microsoft get to control this.
For anything x86 based; they don't. They expressly require OEMs (and onyone else producing motherboards with a little Windows 8 sticker on the box) to allow the end user to add their own Secure Boot keys, as well as insert Microsoft's key. No end-user modification, no certification.
So what are various Linux distros getting bootloaders signed by Microsoft? Because they assume users are not competent enough to enter keys manually. Thus, they ask Microsoft (or take advantage of the service Microsoft offers) to sign their bootloader with Microsoft's preloaded key.
Why not just use a shockwatch and stick it on the outside? That's what they're for, and having one obviously visible is certainyl more of a deterrant to mistreatment than a normal 'handle with care' sticker.
Wait, hang on, do mobile networks in the US allow you to use data without that already being included in your contract BEFORE siwtching you over to a contract with a data connection? Because in the UK, I can put a voice & text only (well, and WAP if you're a masochist) SIM into an iPhone, and it simply won't be able to pull down data even if I ask it to.
On the 'smartphone users need more support' side of things: just don't offer support for phones not purchased through the carrier. That seems like the standard way to do things here.
Hence it is an example of copyright affecting someone's right to view something, not just someone's right to distribute it.
Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
How do public showings of private copies (e.g. a store bought Blu Ray shown to a neighbourhood on a big projection screen) fall under this simplified view of copyright? You're not distributing it, but lots of people are viewing it.
Yes, the US is a bastion of never ever seizing domains (from domain holders outside the US even) for frivolous reasons and with no evidence.
but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures.
Heck no! Human beings will repeatedly make mistakes of logic (e.g. the Sunk Costs fallacy) because the brain is wired by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to be very good at making snap judgements that are correct most of the time over considering a problem fully to account for edge cases. Unfortunately, things like currency are edge cases in the savannah environment.
Wealth based on what? Real estate
Hell yes! The primary utility of an asteroid is that it is not on the surface of the Earth; you don't have to expend truly ludicrous amounts of energy to drag it out of a gravity well.
each pixel is a ball
Close, but not quite. Each pixel is made up of hundreds to tens of thousands of these nanoscale spheres.
It's a similar mistake that people who are only used to discrete displays (e.g. LCDs) make when first working with CRTs: a CRT phosphor triad is not a pixel; a pixel will likely cover several triads. It certainly took me a bit before this finally clicked.
Without that basic tenet, only those of independent wealth would have the means to create and we would lose an entire segment of professional creative people.
It's such a shame that, prior to the Berne Convention, there were no career musicians or painters in the world, and certainly none who were not also independently wealthy. Nope, none at all. Never happened.
(0.1 Sv)
HOLY SHIT. That is massively higher than most of the threshold theories (that I've read) posited. You'd have to chow down on an exorbitant amount of Fukishima grown produce (or fish caught nearby the runoff areas) to even come close to approaching 100mSv.
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
They did. Even prior to the hydrogen explosions, I was following the IAEA and NISA reports on exactly what was going on, complete with regularly updated radiation levels for various sampling stations.
However, if all you're getting in media reports is fearmongering over THIS NUMBER IS 100 TIMES BIGGER THAN THIS OTHER NUMBER! (and neglecting to mention the units, let alone a helpful comparison to commonly encountered levels of radiation) you'd be forgiven for thinking that the people who know what's going on aren't telling anyone. They are, it's simply that nobody is bothering to listen (and think).
So essentially, BlackBerry have paid $1.5 million in order to have a few thousand apps (of indeterminate utility) in their store for launch.
The "touch" element is just a film on top of the screen surface. You can simply skip sticking the film on top of the screen
Adhering the touch layer is hardly simple, but almost beside the point: many modern touchscreens are actually integral to the display panel, rather than a discrete layer. It cuts down significantly on internal reflections be eliminating laminates and moving the actual pixel layer closer to the surface of the cover glass.
When do we start building the space elevator?
When we can consistently produce defect-free carbon nanotubes in much longer lengths than is currently possible. Space elevators require near the upper end of CN theoretical tensile strength.
Bolos, Skyhooks and Rotovators on the other hand...
The end result in both cases is a higher price ... for no purpose at all.
Not necessarily. Manufacturing at economics-of-scale level has some weird idiosyncrasies. For example, it's cheaper to pay a few pennies more per panel to put touchscreens in every model in order to save the cost of having two production processes set up in order to make models with and without touchscreens (which would either require a totally different lid moulding, or manufacture of a separate mechanical shim to take up the extra room and prevent flex). Additionally, it may become more economical, for similar reasons, for panel manufactures to package all their panels with integrated touchscreens rather than running production lines for two models. This would make the purchase price of touchscreen panels drop below that of non-touch panels.