I've read a bunch of your posts so far and I'm impressed with your level of knowledge on this topic. So please don't be offended, but...
For instance you can't losslessly compress white noise using any known method.
This sounds flat out wrong to me. You can take white noise and apply a Huffman scheme to it. There's a good chance you have repeating data SOMEWHERE in that mess. The lossless compression won't be great, but you'll get some. I expect that you'd get better compression the more limited your color palette is.
That's just my non-expert glance at it, of course:)
By the way, I am not completely sure that this is real. Something like this usually pops up every second year, and usually it's fake. I remember reading about fractal compression, which was supposed to blow JPG away. It was in the early 90s, and obviously it didn't have much effect on the industry.
Wavelet image compression has been around for several years now, mostly in proprietary form. Let me give you one particular link - and no I don't work for them:)
It happened with cassette tapes. It happened with computer programs. It happened with VHS tapes. It happened with audio CDs.
It's happening with DVDs.
Yet all of those things are still being sold. Why? Because the profit still greatly outweighs the detrimental effects of piracy.
I think the issue most people here have with this whole DECSS battle is that the DVD Consortium is attempting to use technology to circumvent fair use. In their eyes, ALL copying is illegal, regardless of the purpose. The RIAA is the same way with MP3s.
Well, unfortunately for them, that's not in line with the law in the United States. If I buy a CD, or DVD, or whatever, and I want to make a backup (or anything covered under fair use), then I'm not breaking the law.
I'm so sick of seeing news items like this because each one presents more evidence that the law in the U.S. is on the side with the most money. Irritating in the extreme. Cease and Desist or we'll bleed you dry (even if we don't have a case).
Apparently, from tidbits I've read, the Xing player left their key unencrypted. With this information in hand, the DECSS people were then able to brute force many other keys.
But did they reverse engineer the Xing player in order to retrieve that first key? I would argue that they did NOT, since the key was plainly obvious in the first place.
Whether a judge would buy that or not... well, your guess is as good as mine. But in any case, I think the attack against DECSS is out of line. If these lawyers want to use Xing's license agreement as the focal point of their attack, then I think it could very well backfire on them.
I don't think there's anything devious going on here - sounds like there's just some problem with your VCR or your connection to it.
I went to Radio Shack and spent 20 bucks on an RCA to RF converter. It takes the 3 RCA inputs (video, and L/R sound) and outputs RF which can go into my television. The picture quality is fine, although I'm not making use of the s-video at all. None of this ever touches my VCR. In fact, what I have is:
DVD player RCA out -> amplifier RCA in amplifier RCA out -> converter RCA in converter RF out -> TV
Not great, but it'll hold me over until I have the $$ to buy a new television set.
There's no excuse. If you can administer 800 domains, you can certainly sit down and snail mail those 800 points of contact. I could do it in a single day if I made it my number one priority. Obviously MassLinux didn't. SEAL
Every part of the craft, except the electrons, is still subject to gravity. "Once you've got it up, what would you use to travel horizontally?" Mills asks.
Thrusters?
Mills gently waves that solution away. "Too inelegant. Try a flywheel to play off angular momentum," he suggests, "and the craft itself would act as an airfoil."
Give me a break. Mills needs to go snowboarding. Go flying straight off some big hit. Spin your arms around your body. I guarantee you won't turn a 360. Angular momentum... bah. Your net = 0, so if you have nothing to push off, you're just going to send something spinning in the opposite direction (the craft).
Although I think the guy is a putz, I don't understand why other scientists spend so much time bashing him. They should ignore him and let him make his fortune or fail on his own. Or get themselves a grant and disprove his theories. Many discoveries have been made trying to disprove other ideas.
*shrug*
SEAL
ahh but what about crack dot com?
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 2
They were the real Santa Claus as I recall. I made a quick scan of the article headers and I don't see any mention of them.
Back when Quake was new, crack dot com had the source on one of their servers. Someone happened to lift it from them.
Would Carmack still be giving us this official source release today, if that event had never taken place? He seems like the type who would, but you have to wonder if this subject ever came over at id, before releasing this.
As a consumer, I just can't WAIT to get my hands on one, Intel. I'm just seething with anxiety over new features. Heaven forbid that they should f00f this one up.
Of course it's all simple mathematics, really. The more Intel rushes things, the more likely AMD will come out ahead.
You're absolutely correct with regard to shooting accuracy. Quake isn't going to help at all. A game with an electronic gun might help a little, but there's no recoil to deal with.
The MSNBC article has an interesting quote:
"The FBI says that the average experienced law enforcement officer, in the average shootout, at an average range of seven yards, hits with approximately one bullet in five."
... which is pretty sad. I used to be in the military, and I still pride myself on excellent marksmanship. At 7 yards, I can guarantee you that I would make a head-shot on a stationary target every time. And I sure as hell could shoot better than 1 of 5 on a moving target at that range.
But if someone had never shot a real gun before, they'd be much less accurate. The article goes on to debunk this Lt. Colonel quite a bit (pointing out that the kid in Kentucky was shooting at a crowd of 50 people and that he really couldn't miss). It also pointed out that the kid had prior shooting experience, although the Lt. Colonel's book incorrectly asserted the contrary.
The Lt. Colonel appears to be jumping on the fear and paranoia wagon in order to improve his cash flow. If he's really been in combat situations, then he should know better than to spew this kind of crap.
This is a bit of a rehash but if it helps someone out - what the hell.
I actually find that my mouse is probably more helpful than harmful. The act of moving my hand from the keyboard to the mouse provides some variety which is important.
Consider this: the one time I really experienced wrist pain was after an all-nighter, cranking out a 30 page term paper.
I just don't have the same problem when I'm programming though. I tend to pause and think about things, often taking my hands off the keyboard when I do. I scroll around and browse different files with the mouse. In other words, giving my wrists a break is just part of my work.
Now, if I were to type in a large amount of source code from a book, verbatim, then I'd probably start feeling pain again.
For what it's worth, the Microsoft Natural Keyboard really is a pretty good design (aside from the extra "Win" keys... grr). But if you place your hands on it, your fingertips down to your elbows are in a straight line. If you keep this position, and vary your actions like I said above, you'll be alot less likely to have problems.
The mayor of Seattle gave a press conference yesterday. He himself endorsed protests in all its peaceful and legitimate forms. Tear gas canisters fly when people become stupid and start breaking things. When they do this, their cause is de-valued and they are taken as beligerant zealots.
Tear gas cannisters flew whenever the Seattle police wanted them to fly. Sometimes warning was given, sometimes not. Sometimes violent protesters were targeted. Sometimes peaceful ones. Sometimes the neighborhood residents were getting hit.
There is certainly an injustice taking place here: it's the way Mayor Schell and the Seattle PD have been treating this whole situation. Citizens have rights which are being stomped on.
Patents, in general, have really taken a nose dive since the personal computer achieved widespread use. The original intent of a patent was to allow an inventor to come up with an idea and protect it for a period of time. Whether he profits from it or sits on it is then up to that inventor.
However, with the computer age, the speed of (dare I say) innovation has been astounding. This has produced two detrimental effects. First, the patent examiners simply don't have the niche expertise to scrutinize patents. I'm sure most of us have seen some of the idiotic patents out there. Second, the time span of a patent has become too cumbersome. By the time the patent expires, the invention is often useless.
I sincerely hope that this particular project will be placed under a HUGE spotlight when the patent requests inevitably filter in. I have a feeling it won't hold up, and at the very least, not in some countries.
However, keep in mind that this is scientific information about a human being, not software / computer advances. In that regard, a patent will be cumbersome, but not quashing. The patent (if granted) WILL expire someday. And I'm fairly certain that the information will still be very important and valuable when that day arrives.
Of course I'm all for beating the would-be patenters to the punch, if possible.
Actually not true. You can adjust your buoyancy any way you want. This is done with ballast tanks, of course. A missile sub can adjust buoyancy via normal means, as well as missile comp tanks. These are large tanks which fill with water to adjust buoyancy after missiles are launched (i.e. the missiles are more dense than the water which replaces them in the tube). They also sometimes add a small adjustment to these tanks after being out to sea for a couple months (food is used up by the crew, forcing a compensation).
Some boats can rapidly cycle water within special tanks. The idea here is to keep the sub level, since it is tough to perfectly adjust the different ballast tanks available on the boat.
Steerage. Almost the same problem as above. Any good skipper will try to go no slower than 2 or 3 knots. That way, the boat will still be responsive to steering input. Why? beacause...
True...
Sonar equipment only works in cones or echelons. Problem: you cannot cover the entire 360 degrees around a boat with one passive sonar. Solution: have multiple passive sonars. Most boats have a front array, lateral array, and some (I know the Los Angeles boats do) have towed arrays. For those to work, the boat needs to be able to move the arrays around (purposes of triangulation and all). Not entirely true. I would say a primary motivation for staying mobile is the towed array sonar. It is used quite often (and I would guess that missile subs are even MORE likely to use it). Reason: towed array sonar places a minimum AND maximum on your speed. The line must stay drawn out, but it also can't handle too much stress. This might tie the hands of an attack boat captain. But the missile boats prefer to putt around anyhow, so it's nice to have the extra ears. Now the other reason to move is to clear your baffles. The towed array helps detect noise to the rear, but you do have dead spots to the diagonal rear behind you. That's why you'll often hear about subs moving in a serpent-pattern.
Therefore: Subs will never not move.
False. A missile sub will stop when preparing to launch missiles (not that this happens every day;)) See ballasting notes above.
Sorry for all the nitpicks - most of your writing has been pretty on target. You're right that subs generally would like to stay mobile. Another reason: navigation / targeting often benefits from motion. In other words, it's easier to get something's position when you know how it relates to your own location over time.
I'd fill in more, but you know...
Oh one more thing - as far as I know, all nuclear powered subs have a diesel-electric and/or battery backup. But I really doubt a Typhoon will get 20 knots out of it:) Diesels have all kinds of problems which limit them. For example when running submerged, you get backpressure on your exhaust due to the water it has to push through (via the snorkel). And with the snorkel raised, you once again get speed limited, because you don't want to break off the mast. They're also noisy as hell.
Battery power is quiet, but not very strong. A boat won't run too long (maybe a couple hours?). You use the diesel to charge the battery.
Oh yeah, and the diesel gives everything on the boat, especially your clothes, a quite unforgettable odor.:-)
During my sophomore year at the U.S. Naval Academy, we completed a pretty large "mission" if you will. In previous years, mascots had been stolen by both sides. But there was always a spare mascot to bring to the game (Navy has a goat, and Army has mules -- yeah yeah tradition I know:)).
Anyhow, this particular year, we managed to steal ALL 4 of Army's mules prior to the football game. This was planned out a year in advance, with the assistance of one of our company officers (he's a SEAL, in fact). The planning was needed, since the mules are kept on the USMA campus, which is, in fact, a military base.
We had a civilian travelling on their campus as a tourist, driving a horse-carriage vehicle. At the same time, we had subdued some of their people at a gate, and replaced them with our own (in full Army uniform). This was possible mainly because we had observed the watch rotations for a long time in advance.
Some of our other people, in a separate vehicle made their way to the mules and broke them out. They were then loaded to the carriage which drove NORTH to Albany for awhile. This was to avoid the helicopters which Army sent out to search for the carriage. The rest of us headed south, back to USNA.
Finally we joined up with 4 mules, quite a successful rally, and the only time in the history of these two schools that ALL mascots were stolen from one side. Unfortunately some of our superiors would not allow us to shave NAVY in them before returning them for the game:-)
The GPL does NOT force a developer to release the source code, unless the product is being distributed. Even if Wine used the GPL, Corel has every right to maintain an internal-only tree. Their proprietary enhancements, as you call them, are intended ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.
Let me quote from the preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
This is JUST MY OPINION, although I am a game developer, for whatever that's worth:-)
Shoot-em up. We all know this genre. Quake is probably the best known of them all. Usually first person although there are a few in the 3rd person.
Tactical shooter. I consider this an offshoot of the former. Games like Thief, and Rainbow Six fall into this category.
Head to head fighting. Street Fighter and descendants about sums it up.
Real-time strategy. This is a broad category. You might have past (Age of Empires), futuristic (Starcraft), or modern or fantasy. These games focus on resource management and tactical positioning.
Turn-based strategy. Games like Warlords drift in here. Also many of the old SSI type wargames fit this category.
War simulation. The best example I can think of here, would be the Harpoon games.
With that said, I don't really think there's a problem with ANY of these categories. It's the way each individual game is presented that should determine the rating.
I don't think anyone who has played Harpoon would argue that it is warping the minds of children. If anything, it is very educational with regard to naval operations.
Less remarkable: fighting games. But look at the difference. Street Fighter was hugely popular, and yet cartoonish. Mortal Kombat on the other hand glorified killing your opponent in the most gruesome way possible. So rate them separately.
I don't think that sims should be ignored, but the simple fact is that they don't usually glorify the things that will get you a mature rating.
Perhaps some video games lend to violent behavior, but this is just one small part of a greater problem in society. The games (and developers) take alot more heat than is deserved. Society just wants someone to blame when little Johnny snaps. For the majority of us, I think games are just a pastime, and a way to relax, nothing more.
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear, especially with my little slip up about licensing.
First part: stupid users
The idea here is to make things transparent to them. Let them use their same old apps, but make the behind-the-scenes networking secure. For example, some mail programs can now connect using SSL. If a sysadmin sets it up this way, the end user doesn't usually care (or even know). That's how we need to attack the stupid-user problem. I agree with you that we can't rely on them to get un-stupid.
Part 2: licensing
I said that having OpenSSH in addition to SSH will serve to increase the number of people using this protocol. Reason: I was thinking of the sysadmin ohhhh... like ME:) who wanted SSH installed at work, but was prevented from doing so because the boss didn't want to pay for it. OpenSSH is a blessing for people in my position.
Other companies may prefer to purchase SSH so that they have someone to call up when things go wrong. That's OK too - there's nothing wrong with paying for a commercial version. I think it is a good thing to have BOTH implementations out there.
I will try to avoid the classic open / closed source arguments here, although they creep in a little bit:-)
I think OpenSSH is very important to everyone. License status aside, it represents an alternative way to use the SSH protocol. Some people may prefer it while others may like the closed source version. But I think more people overall will be using one of the two. This is a good thing. There's still alot of plaintext authentication on the net, and I'd be happy to see less of it. POP3, FTP, and telnet are all commonly used, for example.
We all know the average user is lazy about passwords. Sniffing one password often compromises many things. Yes, the user is at fault but now the sysadmin can do something about it (namely wrapping the protocol in SSH). With OpenSSH, perhaps more sysadmins will agree with the licensing.
Additionally, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the IETF needs two independent implementations of a protocol before it can progress towards being an official standard. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sorry I don't have a link to provide). With that in mind, SSH can get the IETF's blessing before a corporation with its own goals decides to muck with what should be in the standard.
Imagine those bombers that flew over Iraq. Now imagine how completely screwed up their orders could have been if Sadam could have hacked the U.Ss C&C infrastrure *or* if the pilots weren't sure their orders were "correct". In the former, you could have bombers dropping bombs on their own side. In the latter, you've got ever set of orders being questioned as to it's authenticity, and slowing everthing down.
Do you really think that you can just "hack" the U.S. Command and Control structure? First of all, the U.S. military, amongst others, focuses on compartmentalizing. Certainly it is a hierarchy, but each subunit knows its job and what to do if isolated.
But more importantly, they don't rely on the Internet for their wartime critical communications. Would you? I mean, sure, you can wreak some havoc on a carrier battle group with an EMP, but that crosses into the realm of a physical attack. Same thing with destroying a key satellite. Carrying out a 100% information based attack usually requires infiltration or compromised security in some form. Simply having access to the Internet won't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance you can't losslessly compress white noise using any known method.
This sounds flat out wrong to me. You can take white noise and apply a Huffman scheme to it. There's a good chance you have repeating data SOMEWHERE in that mess. The lossless compression won't be great, but you'll get some. I expect that you'd get better compression the more limited your color palette is.
That's just my non-expert glance at it, of course :)
Best regards,
SEAL
Wavelet image compression has been around for several years now, mostly in proprietary form. Let me give you one particular link - and no I don't work for them :)
Lightning Strike
Best regards,
SEAL
I was really smiling when I saw that AppleWin lets you bring up a disassembly window. Almost brought a tear to my eye :-)
SEAL
Piracy happens.
It happened with cassette tapes.
It happened with computer programs.
It happened with VHS tapes.
It happened with audio CDs.
It's happening with DVDs.
Yet all of those things are still being sold. Why? Because the profit still greatly outweighs the detrimental effects of piracy.
I think the issue most people here have with this whole DECSS battle is that the DVD Consortium is attempting to use technology to circumvent fair use. In their eyes, ALL copying is illegal, regardless of the purpose. The RIAA is the same way with MP3s.
Well, unfortunately for them, that's not in line with the law in the United States. If I buy a CD, or DVD, or whatever, and I want to make a backup (or anything covered under fair use), then I'm not breaking the law.
I'm so sick of seeing news items like this because each one presents more evidence that the law in the U.S. is on the side with the most money. Irritating in the extreme. Cease and Desist or we'll bleed you dry (even if we don't have a case).
Blah.
SEAL
But did they reverse engineer the Xing player in order to retrieve that first key? I would argue that they did NOT, since the key was plainly obvious in the first place.
Whether a judge would buy that or not... well, your guess is as good as mine. But in any case, I think the attack against DECSS is out of line. If these lawyers want to use Xing's license agreement as the focal point of their attack, then I think it could very well backfire on them.
Best regards,
SEAL
I don't think there's anything devious going on here - sounds like there's just some problem with your VCR or your connection to it.
I went to Radio Shack and spent 20 bucks on an RCA to RF converter. It takes the 3 RCA inputs (video, and L/R sound) and outputs RF which can go into my television. The picture quality is fine, although I'm not making use of the s-video at all. None of this ever touches my VCR. In fact, what I have is:
DVD player RCA out -> amplifier RCA in
amplifier RCA out -> converter RCA in
converter RF out -> TV
Not great, but it'll hold me over until I have the $$ to buy a new television set.
SEAL
There's no excuse. If you can administer 800 domains, you can certainly sit down and snail mail those 800 points of contact. I could do it in a single day if I made it my number one priority. Obviously MassLinux didn't. SEAL
Every part of the craft, except the electrons, is still subject to gravity. "Once you've got it up, what would you use to travel horizontally?" Mills asks.
Thrusters?
Mills gently waves that solution away. "Too inelegant. Try a flywheel to play off angular momentum," he suggests, "and the craft itself would act as an airfoil."
Give me a break. Mills needs to go snowboarding. Go flying straight off some big hit. Spin your arms around your body. I guarantee you won't turn a 360. Angular momentum... bah. Your net = 0, so if you have nothing to push off, you're just going to send something spinning in the opposite direction (the craft).
Although I think the guy is a putz, I don't understand why other scientists spend so much time bashing him. They should ignore him and let him make his fortune or fail on his own. Or get themselves a grant and disprove his theories. Many discoveries have been made trying to disprove other ideas.
*shrug*
SEAL
They were the real Santa Claus as I recall. I made a quick scan of the article headers and I don't see any mention of them.
Back when Quake was new, crack dot com had the source on one of their servers. Someone happened to lift it from them.
Would Carmack still be giving us this official source release today, if that event had never taken place? He seems like the type who would, but you have to wonder if this subject ever came over at id, before releasing this.
Best regards,
SEAL
As a consumer, I just can't WAIT to get my hands on one, Intel. I'm just seething with anxiety over new features. Heaven forbid that they should f00f this one up.
Of course it's all simple mathematics, really. The more Intel rushes things, the more likely AMD will come out ahead.
:-)
Best regards,
SEAL
You're absolutely correct with regard to shooting accuracy. Quake isn't going to help at all. A game with an electronic gun might help a little, but there's no recoil to deal with.
The MSNBC article has an interesting quote:
"The FBI says that the average experienced law enforcement officer, in the average shootout, at an average range of seven yards, hits with approximately one bullet in five."
... which is pretty sad. I used to be in the military, and I still pride myself on excellent marksmanship. At 7 yards, I can guarantee you that I would make a head-shot on a stationary target every time. And I sure as hell could shoot better than 1 of 5 on a moving target at that range.
But if someone had never shot a real gun before, they'd be much less accurate. The article goes on to debunk this Lt. Colonel quite a bit (pointing out that the kid in Kentucky was shooting at a crowd of 50 people and that he really couldn't miss). It also pointed out that the kid had prior shooting experience, although the Lt. Colonel's book incorrectly asserted the contrary.
The Lt. Colonel appears to be jumping on the fear and paranoia wagon in order to improve his cash flow. If he's really been in combat situations, then he should know better than to spew this kind of crap.
Best regards,
SEAL
I actually find that my mouse is probably more helpful than harmful. The act of moving my hand from the keyboard to the mouse provides some variety which is important.
Consider this: the one time I really experienced wrist pain was after an all-nighter, cranking out a 30 page term paper.
I just don't have the same problem when I'm programming though. I tend to pause and think about things, often taking my hands off the keyboard when I do. I scroll around and browse different files with the mouse. In other words, giving my wrists a break is just part of my work.
Now, if I were to type in a large amount of source code from a book, verbatim, then I'd probably start feeling pain again.
For what it's worth, the Microsoft Natural Keyboard really is a pretty good design (aside from the extra "Win" keys... grr). But if you place your hands on it, your fingertips down to your elbows are in a straight line. If you keep this position, and vary your actions like I said above, you'll be alot less likely to have problems.
Best regards,
SEAL
Hehe that about sums it up.
SEAL
Tear gas cannisters flew whenever the Seattle police wanted them to fly. Sometimes warning was given, sometimes not. Sometimes violent protesters were targeted. Sometimes peaceful ones. Sometimes the neighborhood residents were getting hit.
There is certainly an injustice taking place here: it's the way Mayor Schell and the Seattle PD have been treating this whole situation. Citizens have rights which are being stomped on.
SEAL
Once you hit the power button, you just can't stop hitting it... :)
Robert Morris Jr. could hardly have designed a multiple-vulnerability exploit by accident. Sorry to nitpick :-)
SEAL
However, with the computer age, the speed of (dare I say) innovation has been astounding. This has produced two detrimental effects. First, the patent examiners simply don't have the niche expertise to scrutinize patents. I'm sure most of us have seen some of the idiotic patents out there. Second, the time span of a patent has become too cumbersome. By the time the patent expires, the invention is often useless.
I sincerely hope that this particular project will be placed under a HUGE spotlight when the patent requests inevitably filter in. I have a feeling it won't hold up, and at the very least, not in some countries.
However, keep in mind that this is scientific information about a human being, not software / computer advances. In that regard, a patent will be cumbersome, but not quashing. The patent (if granted) WILL expire someday. And I'm fairly certain that the information will still be very important and valuable when that day arrives.
Of course I'm all for beating the would-be patenters to the punch, if possible.
Best regards,
SEAL
To prevent broaching. Subs are designed to be a tiny bit boyant. That's why when they move normally at a constant depth the diving planes are at a slight down angle (usually a degree or two). If the sub stops moving, she can no longer totally control her depth. That's a Bad Thing ©
Actually not true. You can adjust your buoyancy any way you want. This is done with ballast tanks, of course. A missile sub can adjust buoyancy via normal means, as well as missile comp tanks. These are large tanks which fill with water to adjust buoyancy after missiles are launched (i.e. the missiles are more dense than the water which replaces them in the tube). They also sometimes add a small adjustment to these tanks after being out to sea for a couple months (food is used up by the crew, forcing a compensation).
Some boats can rapidly cycle water within special tanks. The idea here is to keep the sub level, since it is tough to perfectly adjust the different ballast tanks available on the boat.
Steerage. Almost the same problem as above. Any good skipper will try to go no slower than 2 or 3 knots. That way, the boat will still be responsive to steering input. Why? beacause...
True...
Sonar equipment only works in cones or echelons. Problem: you cannot cover the entire 360 degrees around a boat with one passive sonar. Solution: have multiple passive sonars. Most boats have a front array, lateral array, and some (I know the Los Angeles boats do) have towed arrays. For those to work, the boat needs to be able to move the arrays around (purposes of triangulation and all). Not entirely true. I would say a primary motivation for staying mobile is the towed array sonar. It is used quite often (and I would guess that missile subs are even MORE likely to use it). Reason: towed array sonar places a minimum AND maximum on your speed. The line must stay drawn out, but it also can't handle too much stress. This might tie the hands of an attack boat captain. But the missile boats prefer to putt around anyhow, so it's nice to have the extra ears. Now the other reason to move is to clear your baffles. The towed array helps detect noise to the rear, but you do have dead spots to the diagonal rear behind you. That's why you'll often hear about subs moving in a serpent-pattern.
Therefore: Subs will never not move.
False. A missile sub will stop when preparing to launch missiles (not that this happens every day ;)) See ballasting notes above.
Sorry for all the nitpicks - most of your writing has been pretty on target. You're right that subs generally would like to stay mobile. Another reason: navigation / targeting often benefits from motion. In other words, it's easier to get something's position when you know how it relates to your own location over time.
I'd fill in more, but you know...
Oh one more thing - as far as I know, all nuclear powered subs have a diesel-electric and/or battery backup. But I really doubt a Typhoon will get 20 knots out of it :) Diesels have all kinds of problems which limit them. For example when running submerged, you get backpressure on your exhaust due to the water it has to push through (via the snorkel). And with the snorkel raised, you once again get speed limited, because you don't want to break off the mast. They're also noisy as hell.
Battery power is quiet, but not very strong. A boat won't run too long (maybe a couple hours?). You use the diesel to charge the battery.
Oh yeah, and the diesel gives everything on the boat, especially your clothes, a quite unforgettable odor. :-)
SEAL
During my sophomore year at the U.S. Naval Academy, we completed a pretty large "mission" if you will. In previous years, mascots had been stolen by both sides. But there was always a spare mascot to bring to the game (Navy has a goat, and Army has mules -- yeah yeah tradition I know :)).
Anyhow, this particular year, we managed to steal ALL 4 of Army's mules prior to the football game. This was planned out a year in advance, with the assistance of one of our company officers (he's a SEAL, in fact). The planning was needed, since the mules are kept on the USMA campus, which is, in fact, a military base.
We had a civilian travelling on their campus as a tourist, driving a horse-carriage vehicle. At the same time, we had subdued some of their people at a gate, and replaced them with our own (in full Army uniform). This was possible mainly because we had observed the watch rotations for a long time in advance.
Some of our other people, in a separate vehicle made their way to the mules and broke them out. They were then loaded to the carriage which drove NORTH to Albany for awhile. This was to avoid the helicopters which Army sent out to search for the carriage. The rest of us headed south, back to USNA.
Finally we joined up with 4 mules, quite a successful rally, and the only time in the history of these two schools that ALL mascots were stolen from one side. Unfortunately some of our superiors would not allow us to shave NAVY in them before returning them for the game :-)
Best regards,
SEAL
The GPL does NOT force a developer to release the source code, unless the product is being distributed. Even if Wine used the GPL, Corel has every right to maintain an internal-only tree. Their proprietary enhancements, as you call them, are intended ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.
Let me quote from the preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
'Nuff said.
SEAL
Shoot-em up. We all know this genre. Quake is probably the best known of them all. Usually first person although there are a few in the 3rd person.
Tactical shooter. I consider this an offshoot of the former. Games like Thief, and Rainbow Six fall into this category.
Head to head fighting. Street Fighter and descendants about sums it up.
Real-time strategy. This is a broad category. You might have past (Age of Empires), futuristic (Starcraft), or modern or fantasy. These games focus on resource management and tactical positioning.
Turn-based strategy. Games like Warlords drift in here. Also many of the old SSI type wargames fit this category.
War simulation. The best example I can think of here, would be the Harpoon games.
With that said, I don't really think there's a problem with ANY of these categories. It's the way each individual game is presented that should determine the rating.
I don't think anyone who has played Harpoon would argue that it is warping the minds of children. If anything, it is very educational with regard to naval operations.
Less remarkable: fighting games. But look at the difference. Street Fighter was hugely popular, and yet cartoonish. Mortal Kombat on the other hand glorified killing your opponent in the most gruesome way possible. So rate them separately.
I don't think that sims should be ignored, but the simple fact is that they don't usually glorify the things that will get you a mature rating.
Perhaps some video games lend to violent behavior, but this is just one small part of a greater problem in society. The games (and developers) take alot more heat than is deserved. Society just wants someone to blame when little Johnny snaps. For the majority of us, I think games are just a pastime, and a way to relax, nothing more.
Best regards,
SEAL
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear, especially with my little slip up about licensing.
:) who wanted SSH installed at work, but was prevented from doing so because the boss didn't want to pay for it. OpenSSH is a blessing for people in my position.
First part: stupid users
The idea here is to make things transparent to them. Let them use their same old apps, but make the behind-the-scenes networking secure. For example, some mail programs can now connect using SSL. If a sysadmin sets it up this way, the end user doesn't usually care (or even know). That's how we need to attack the stupid-user problem. I agree with you that we can't rely on them to get un-stupid.
Part 2: licensing
I said that having OpenSSH in addition to SSH will serve to increase the number of people using this protocol. Reason: I was thinking of the sysadmin ohhhh... like ME
Other companies may prefer to purchase SSH so that they have someone to call up when things go wrong. That's OK too - there's nothing wrong with paying for a commercial version. I think it is a good thing to have BOTH implementations out there.
Best regards,
SEAL
Sorry I shouldn't have called it open vs. closed source. I meant to emphasize that OpenSSH has a less restrictive license. My error.
SEAL
I will try to avoid the classic open / closed source arguments here, although they creep in a little bit :-)
I think OpenSSH is very important to everyone. License status aside, it represents an alternative way to use the SSH protocol. Some people may prefer it while others may like the closed source version. But I think more people overall will be using one of the two. This is a good thing. There's still alot of plaintext authentication on the net, and I'd be happy to see less of it. POP3, FTP, and telnet are all commonly used, for example.
We all know the average user is lazy about passwords. Sniffing one password often compromises many things. Yes, the user is at fault but now the sysadmin can do something about it (namely wrapping the protocol in SSH). With OpenSSH, perhaps more sysadmins will agree with the licensing.
Additionally, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the IETF needs two independent implementations of a protocol before it can progress towards being an official standard. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sorry I don't have a link to provide). With that in mind, SSH can get the IETF's blessing before a corporation with its own goals decides to muck with what should be in the standard.
Just my $.02
SEAL
Imagine those bombers that flew over Iraq. Now imagine how completely screwed up their orders could have been if Sadam could have hacked the U.Ss C&C infrastrure *or* if the pilots weren't sure their orders were "correct". In the former, you could have bombers dropping bombs on their own side. In the latter, you've got ever set of orders being questioned as to it's authenticity, and slowing everthing down.
Do you really think that you can just "hack" the U.S. Command and Control structure? First of all, the U.S. military, amongst others, focuses on compartmentalizing. Certainly it is a hierarchy, but each subunit knows its job and what to do if isolated.
But more importantly, they don't rely on the Internet for their wartime critical communications. Would you? I mean, sure, you can wreak some havoc on a carrier battle group with an EMP, but that crosses into the realm of a physical attack. Same thing with destroying a key satellite. Carrying out a 100% information based attack usually requires infiltration or compromised security in some form. Simply having access to the Internet won't cut it.
Best regards,
SEAL