Question yourself - why do relative many people take effort to learn Dvorak, and a large amount of them state they don't want to go back? Is that because it's an inferior layout? Are all those people fooling themselves? Or could it be that 'qwerty is good enough too', and that a learning curve to another layout is long, and in the beginning, pretty steep?
In this world where people believe in homeopathy, Scientology and other such crap in this world, that argument is not going to find too many takers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as he's only replicating the operation of the machine and not its internal working, isn't he just reverse-engineering the machine? AFAIK reverse-engineering is legitimate in the eyes of the law.
... and every combat rifle designed by every Western country worked perfectly from the first attempt right?
* XM29 OICW (USA)
* XM8 (USA)
* Steyr ACR (Austria)
* H&K G11 (Germany)
* Armtech C30R (Austria)
Every manufacturer has to go through a learning curve before the products can compete against the best of the world. The only way to fail is to not try at all.
While the development of the Agni series did begin in 1983, the Agni-V launched yesterday is an evolved version of the Agni II. About as similar as the current-generation Porsches have with the original in 1963:).
The Agni family can be divided into 3 generations
* Agni II (First into service)
* Agni I & III
* Agni IV & V - The Agni IV isn't meant to enter service but was a proving exercise for the technologies used on the Agni V
This 'long range missile' was designed with SUBMARINE LAUNCH CAPABILITY IN MIND.
Does India have working Submarines?
Then the US is a target.
The Agni is a land-based missile and is expected to be launched from rail-based vehicles. The sub-launched missiles are the Sagarika (700 km range and tested successfully but not yet in service) and the K-4 (3500 km range which is under development and hasn't had any flight tests as yet)
India does not have any ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in service yet. The first one - the Arihant was launched last year and is undergoing tests. All other submarines are either SSKs or SSNs
The F-35 didn't have a chance... the contest only allowed aircraft already in production and those willing to perform full technology transfer and production rights.
US law doesn't allow transfer of stealth technology. None of the F-35 partner countries are given access to this tech and production is limited to the US.
While the Tejas is close to entering service, it is a lightweight aircraft, designed to be cheap (~$25M) and keep the numbers. This contest was for a medium-sized aircraft bringing in more capability and to be able to support the Su-30MKI which are the IAF's primary fighters.
The FGFA and AMCA are long-term projects which are not likely to enter service before the decade is out.
Some background and corrections as I've been following this story since the tender first came out...
The contest was based on over 600 parameters. Every aircraft had to 'pass' at least 590 parameters to make it to the second round.
While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter...
The F-35 was never offered for this contest.. it wouldn't even be eligible. Only aircraft that were already in production and could start deliveries by 2013 were allowed. The other American aircraft were eliminated in the first round... The Indian Air Force liked the F/A-18's AESA radar so much that it was made a mandatory requirement for the other contestants too. However, in size the Hornet is just too big for the role the IAF was looking to fit it into. The F-16 never had a chance since Pakistan is a major operator of the type.
Only the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter made it to the second round, which is when the sealed tenders were opened. Dassault always had a slight edge over other competitors since it has a long history with the IAF. The Rafale's predecessor - the Mirage 2000 is one of the best-performing and highest-uptime aircraft with the IAF
... a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper...
Cost is not that significant a factor... like I mentioned earlier, the tenders were unsealed only after the aircraft that didn't meet the performance parameters were eliminated. By law, the IAF has to choose the lowest-cost successful bidder.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than the Hornet or Falcon (and significantly more so than the Gripen). If the Hornet or Gripen had gotten to the second round, they'd probably be the winner of the contest.
... if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air?
That's one of the criteria where the American aircraft failed. India's defence policy requires multiple vendors from different countries of origin to minimise the control that can be exerted. (Which is why the IAF flies such a plethora of types). After the Indian nuclear tests in 1996, US sanctions meant that most Western-built designs in IAF service were affected due to a lack of spare parts (Sea King helicopters, F404 engines for the Tejas fighter etc.).
This treaty was a successor to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 (Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight)
In this treaty the signatories agreed to prevent the use of explosive or fulminating bullets.
The 30mm cannon on the AH-64 Apache can use either Armor Piercing or High Explosive bullets. However, AP bullets are primarily used against armored vehicles.
The use of explosive bullets (dum-dum bullets) against humans is banned. The US is a signatory to this treaty as well. The biggest non-explosive bullets are of 12.7mm NATO or 14.5mm WARPAC caliber.
... I do not think, in fact, that history bears a single example since WWII at least of any foreign military aircraft being reverse engineered into a successful combat aircraft....
The Chinese reverse-engineered the Super Frelon into the Z-8.
The Chinese (again) reverse-engineered the MiG-21 into the J-7 series. This in turn evolved into the J-7M, and now the FC-17.
Yet another example of reverse-engineering is when the Chinese copied the MiG-19 and built their J-6. The J-6 in turn was developed into the Q-5.
The Soviets copied the Boeing B-29 to make their Tu-4 'Bull'. While the Bull was not that effective a bomber, it helped them move on to more advanced aircraft a few years later like the Tu-95 'Bear'.
While not an aircraft, the Soviets reverse-engineered AIM-9 Sidewinders to develop the R-2 'Atoll' missiles, the R-13 variant of which is still in service today.
After WW2, both the US Navy and the Soviet Navy designed new submarines based on late model German designs. While these were not exact copies, some technologies were directly derived from the German designs.
On the whole, reverse-engineering does not necessarily guarantee a product will be successful, but it will ensure that the country/organization will have less difficulty in building the next one.
SAP is not an acronym anymore. Sometime back they re-registered (or re-trademarked or whatever it's called) themselves making the old acronym their full name. I believe FedEx did the same, but I could be wrong about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Question yourself - why do relative many people take effort to learn Dvorak, and a large amount of them state they don't want to go back? Is that because it's an inferior layout? Are all those people fooling themselves? Or could it be that 'qwerty is good enough too', and that a learning curve to another layout is long, and in the beginning, pretty steep?
In this world where people believe in homeopathy, Scientology and other such crap in this world, that argument is not going to find too many takers.
WRT catfish eating humans .... It's already happened ... Kali River goonch attacks
FTFA The sea level was 1400+ metres below the sea level ... that would be a hell of a tide
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as he's only replicating the operation of the machine and not its internal working, isn't he just reverse-engineering the machine? AFAIK reverse-engineering is legitimate in the eyes of the law.
You can download legit Indian and Pakistani music from Flyte which is a part of Flipkart (owned by Amazon)
If the (slightly inaccurate) result of one iteration is fed as the input of the next, wouldn't the results get even more inaccurate over time?
I don't see the article stating that the Agni was designed with submarine-launch capabilities anywhere. Wanna point it out to me?
... and every combat rifle designed by every Western country worked perfectly from the first attempt right?
* XM29 OICW (USA)
* XM8 (USA)
* Steyr ACR (Austria)
* H&K G11 (Germany)
* Armtech C30R (Austria)
Every manufacturer has to go through a learning curve before the products can compete against the best of the world. The only way to fail is to not try at all.
While the development of the Agni series did begin in 1983, the Agni-V launched yesterday is an evolved version of the Agni II. About as similar as the current-generation Porsches have with the original in 1963 :).
The Agni family can be divided into 3 generations
* Agni II (First into service)
* Agni I & III
* Agni IV & V - The Agni IV isn't meant to enter service but was a proving exercise for the technologies used on the Agni V
This 'long range missile' was designed with SUBMARINE LAUNCH CAPABILITY IN MIND.
Does India have working Submarines?
Then the US is a target.
The Agni is a land-based missile and is expected to be launched from rail-based vehicles. The sub-launched missiles are the Sagarika (700 km range and tested successfully but not yet in service) and the K-4 (3500 km range which is under development and hasn't had any flight tests as yet)
India does not have any ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in service yet. The first one - the Arihant was launched last year and is undergoing tests. All other submarines are either SSKs or SSNs
India has no such agreement.
India unilaterally declared that it will not export any ballistic missile technology despite not being a member of the MTCR
Correction ... The F-20 Tigershark used the engine from the F/A-18 Hornet not the F-16 Falcon
Check out
India-China tension
Chengdu J-10
The F-35 didn't have a chance ... the contest only allowed aircraft already in production and those willing to perform full technology transfer and production rights.
US law doesn't allow transfer of stealth technology. None of the F-35 partner countries are given access to this tech and production is limited to the US.
HAL Tejas
Sukhoi/HAL FGFA
HAL AMCA
While the Tejas is close to entering service, it is a lightweight aircraft, designed to be cheap (~$25M) and keep the numbers. This contest was for a medium-sized aircraft bringing in more capability and to be able to support the Su-30MKI which are the IAF's primary fighters.
The FGFA and AMCA are long-term projects which are not likely to enter service before the decade is out.
While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter ...
The F-35 was never offered for this contest .. it wouldn't even be eligible. Only aircraft that were already in production and could start deliveries by 2013 were allowed. The other American aircraft were eliminated in the first round ... The Indian Air Force liked the F/A-18's AESA radar so much that it was made a mandatory requirement for the other contestants too. However, in size the Hornet is just too big for the role the IAF was looking to fit it into. The F-16 never had a chance since Pakistan is a major operator of the type.
... a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper ...
Cost is not that significant a factor ... like I mentioned earlier, the tenders were unsealed only after the aircraft that didn't meet the performance parameters were eliminated. By law, the IAF has to choose the lowest-cost successful bidder.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than the Hornet or Falcon (and significantly more so than the Gripen). If the Hornet or Gripen had gotten to the second round, they'd probably be the winner of the contest.
... if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air?
That's one of the criteria where the American aircraft failed. India's defence policy requires multiple vendors from different countries of origin to minimise the control that can be exerted. (Which is why the IAF flies such a plethora of types). After the Indian nuclear tests in 1996, US sanctions meant that most Western-built designs in IAF service were affected due to a lack of spare parts (Sea King helicopters, F404 engines for the Tejas fighter etc.).
Do insurance companies actually sell flood insurance to people living in flood-prone areas?
This treaty was a successor to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 (Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight)
Full Text
In this treaty the signatories agreed to prevent the use of explosive or fulminating bullets.
The 30mm cannon on the AH-64 Apache can use either Armor Piercing or High Explosive bullets. However, AP bullets are primarily used against armored vehicles.
The use of explosive bullets (dum-dum bullets) against humans is banned. The US is a signatory to this treaty as well. The biggest non-explosive bullets are of 12.7mm NATO or 14.5mm WARPAC caliber.
... I do not think, in fact, that history bears a single example since WWII at least of any foreign military aircraft being reverse engineered into a successful combat aircraft....
The Chinese reverse-engineered the Super Frelon into the Z-8.
The Chinese (again) reverse-engineered the MiG-21 into the J-7 series. This in turn evolved into the J-7M, and now the FC-17.
Yet another example of reverse-engineering is when the Chinese copied the MiG-19 and built their J-6. The J-6 in turn was developed into the Q-5.
The Soviets copied the Boeing B-29 to make their Tu-4 'Bull'. While the Bull was not that effective a bomber, it helped them move on to more advanced aircraft a few years later like the Tu-95 'Bear'.
While not an aircraft, the Soviets reverse-engineered AIM-9 Sidewinders to develop the R-2 'Atoll' missiles, the R-13 variant of which is still in service today.
After WW2, both the US Navy and the Soviet Navy designed new submarines based on late model German designs. While these were not exact copies, some technologies were directly derived from the German designs.
On the whole, reverse-engineering does not necessarily guarantee a product will be successful, but it will ensure that the country/organization will have less difficulty in building the next one.
$799 for the top of the line version
SAP is not an acronym anymore. Sometime back they re-registered (or re-trademarked or whatever it's called) themselves making the old acronym their full name. I believe FedEx did the same, but I could be wrong about that.
Just my $0.02.
Copper rusts? I thought only iron does that? I think you mean corrodes. :)
Also, if there's mould growing on the food, then it can cause health problems in some people.