believe me, you wouldnt be able to find a host with windows and php and any other meshup. you would need to REALLY look hard for it.
almost ALL of the shared hosting is being done out of linux boxes, and mysql and php are a given on them.
check the hub to get to know whats going on with the hosting scene better : www.webhostingtalk.com just our own box hosts more than 350 accounts on linux/apache/mysql/php, many community sites, and around 60 of it are 1000-2000 product strong big estores on oscommerce/creloaded.
Better build some new airframes using those designs if you dislike new ones. We can agree to disagree on the UAV issue, but what is your answer for the airframe wearout problem? SLEP? If so what kind? im never saying that old airframes should keep being used. never. im saying that one doesnt need advanced fighter concepts in airframe if the combat is going to be done in standoff fashion and electronically. you dont need no maneuverability there.
The F-16 and F-15 ARE long in the tooth (have you spent any time maintaining them or are you otherwise familiar with how tired these machines are becoming?) and even the later F-16s have airframe problems stemming from high flight time and hanging large ordnance off a small airframe. What is your personal aviation maintenance and/or sortie generating experience? I have zilch, nada, zero. refer to the above block.
In your opinion, what are those systems? you dont need extensive, highly automated surveillance stuff for a combat mission. humans in aircraft do not use them extensively anyway. whats broadly used are radar based equipment, and mainly laser guided bombs. the latter doesnt require aircraft's input anyway. russian approach with a twist - add the bare necessities for mission, but this time throw in western technology.
Then do it and get rich. Hire me while you're at it.:)
I'll be happy to help support, maintain and field such systems, and don't object to them if they can be gotten to work, but that HAS NOT HAPPENED yet at the level to replace manned acft. im one of them who wears flowers in his/her hair. peace at our times. peace in future. i'd like to continue the discussion if it was around 10 years ago, but im so all far out in the land of peace and balance now, that discussing these sounds brutal as of now so ill be passing on that, my apologies. whatever combat that i should discuss from now on would probably be psychic. and defense at that one too.
predator is not an airframe suitable for going on combat missions. its better for surveillance. first, a faster and slightly bigger airframe is needed, and it needs to use turbofan engines. modelists do use turbofan engines on many models that are considerably smaller, even in 1/72 scale anyway. it needs to fly very high, as much as it can, and rely on radars and satellite (gps) input to find its way and conduct business. laser guided freefall bombs for support (with infantry) and gps reliant guided missiles for non infantry aided tasks. these are air to surface. radar guided missiles are abundant already, and these can conduct air to air missions with the support of an awacs nearby even. there are so many possibilities for such an airframe. what you need is just an airframe that carries enough equipment to do the task, and has enough service ceiling and speed and thats it. you dont need risk no highly trained pilot in it - pilot can be thousands of miles away.
we are going to transcend into another dimension with the flip... wait ! thats nothing new is it ! "when the mooooon is in the seveenth houuseeee, and jupiteeerr aliiggnss wiiith maaarss"
Superficial resemblance/= "essential sameness". I'd like to remind you to learn more about missile and UAV systems.:) no need in that. i had engineering education already. and speaking from an engineer's point of view i can say that whatever you can do with a propulsion system and airframe, you can do the same with similar system and airframe, but use different set of internal mission systems.
you talk like UAV is a concept that is monolithic and compact. it isnt. take the valuable systems you speak of, and put only enough systems to conduct the combat mission, and you'd still have something cheaper than a cruise missile.
if i am able to put more uavs on field due to the relative cheapness compared to the cost of training and keeping a pilot and building and maintaining an aircraft (and i bet i can), i will be having a larger advantage.
hackable/jammable datalinks do not constitute an argument either, for almost all systems the modern aircraft relies on are also hackable and jammable. just, there hasnt been a battle between equally advanced armies, and we havent seen the ecm/eccm carnage in the air yet. when it happens, probably many aircraft systems will be unreliable too. so theres no tradeoff there.
Stealth PLUS standoff gives greater margins of safety than "standoff". The enemy may object to your non-stealth bomber or ship off his coast. with stealth plus standoff you dont need the maneuverability of a fighter plane. thats the trick. designing an equivalent of a b52 in a fashion that is stealthy enough (geometrically and material wise) is much more cheaper than designing a fighter plane thats going to outmaneuver opponents in heated dogfight. AND when you count in the amount of ecm/eccm equipment that can be put in such an airframe, the need for stealth becomes doubtable too. heck, you can even put small automated aa defense systems even, to point defense against incoming missiles.
Our ancient 1970s-design fighter airframes need replacement to fill the capability gap between manned and immature unmanned sytems.
no they dont. the current electronic battlefield requirements have already gone over what humans can accommodate. first the fighter plane crew have risen to 2 due to need for maintaining the equipment, and then the need for man machine interaction increased even more.
its already evident what they are trying to do. they are trying to push ms stuff over seemingly open source channels. just HOW many signs and moves you people need to get it ?
metaphysical/paranormal sources might not need to transmit thoughts and feelings telephatically, however, in the case there is not an interpreter present, what is received in the recipient would be probably taken as a thought, feeling of the self, therefore not regarded as an outer communication. this would complicate things. therefore the need for an interpreter.
i dont see lotr as 'dark'. there were dark elements well placed where they due, but there were very well done lighter elements as well. remember the shire before the journey started.
i look at lotr, and i see a 'grand' scale. and persons, places, events described as they were in the book. this matters.
Geez. you probably have no experience of starcraft and related rts gaming. what you depict has been so much used during 1998-1999 that it is now seen as a sign of noobness. whoever does it gets their ass whipped.
Lotr was one of the most successful book to screen adaptations. And mind that, there are only 4-5 of such successful adaptations.
if, someone can effectively translate the spirit of a book that well to screen, s/he can as well make any irrelevant episode in a lore relevant and in-line.
Pal, there are millions exactly waiting to see that.
I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.
boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.
speaking on behalf of the millions of take-no-chances geeks in fact.
if a movie is done well, no problem. but fool s/he be anyone who would go and take chances on a new director, whereas there is already a director that has done the exact same thing spectacularly well.
As of now i have Best Classics 100 Vol 1, (6cd, stuffed with classical music), Best Classics 100 Vol 2 (6cd again), Best Relaxing classics (6 cd again, Best Baroque Classics (again 6 cd).
All are emi's.
I duly ripped them off to my hd, and im listening them wherever, however i want. No holds barred, no restrictions.
I bought all these just over the course of a year. goddamn easy. Up to that point, for over 10 years, i havent bought a single music cd. im serious. then, when i got into classical music a year ago, i thought that instead of p2ping and searching and trying to create a goddamn collection, i could just buy a set. and i did. and im living in a country where copyright doesnt mean jack shit.
result is, i have every kind of shit i can want. winamp gets the info from ccdb databases, and suddenly, as a person who is a total noob when it comes to identifying what piece is whose, i am able to tell them apart from each other.
now im looking for EMI sign whenever i am going to buy some set again. i have decided to go into some latin, saw a set, but saw some other firm's brand on it, which firm has an infamous standing when it comes to drm shit. i just avoided them and now am waiting until i can get something emi, no hassles.
Cruise missiles and similar weapons are so expensive that they are built in small quantities which are rapidly used up. The US is a "major power" and even we don't have limitless missiles. That's why most of the Iraq war was fought with "dumb" or not especially intelligent bombs delivered by "smart" aircraft.
using up cruise missiles on key targets make great difference. and at this stage id like to remind you that the difference between a cruise missile and a uav is the fact that former is going to be used up.
additionally, if you are going to use stand off equipment, you really dont need to invest in that much high technology anyway - like stealthy fighters and such. whatever a fighter is going to carry as missile payload and use, (from what i remember f14s were able to track 12 targets and guide missiles to 6 of them at the same time) a b52 or any other old airframe modified with early warning systems (awacs and like, they use in hawkeyes) ecm and eccm measures and amraam and other new generation air to air missiles) will do even better. you wont need stealthy red baron like agility of a fighter plane when you are fighting over the horizon missile wars.
and what if, the cash thats spent on getting advanced fighters such as these, is spent on bettering uavs to the level of cruise missiles, and make them deliver payloads ?
much cheaper, requires less crew to train and operate, not barred by physical limitations of human body and easily replaceable.
that is the route air war is taking. and investing in 20 year long big fighter projects will start to be seen as foolhardy decisions, shortly.
Land/sea and air are very different mediums. In land and sea there are much more variables and issues to counter before any automated vehicles can get the upper hand. whereas air is a medium that is more easily manageable - doesnt have hills, rivers, some infantry behind every bush and so on. go high enough, and you can monitor and send missiles over horizon. (phoneix, f14s already were doing that).
air casualty rates are microscopic today because for the last 30 years no major power is fighting against another. whomever major powers are figthing (soviet vs afghan, us vs vietnamese, uk vs argentina) are lacking in many respects even if they have just any equality in any aspect of the war. (argentina having some edge with exocets and etandards, but lacking in all other respects like support, early warning, telecommunications, ecm, eccm).
when any 2 major powers fight, it will come up that expensive, hard to produce manned vehicles will become a liability if the fight is not over very, very soon. and it will be seen that automated systems like tomahawks and other cruise missiles pay out big time.
Slashdot Mirror
believe me, you wouldnt be able to find a host with windows and php and any other meshup. you would need to REALLY look hard for it.
almost ALL of the shared hosting is being done out of linux boxes, and mysql and php are a given on them.
check the hub to get to know whats going on with the hosting scene better : www.webhostingtalk.com
just our own box hosts more than 350 accounts on linux/apache/mysql/php, many community sites, and around 60 of it are 1000-2000 product strong big estores on oscommerce/creloaded.
microsoft is archaic, not late on this one.
predator is not an airframe suitable for going on combat missions. its better for surveillance. first, a faster and slightly bigger airframe is needed, and it needs to use turbofan engines. modelists do use turbofan engines on many models that are considerably smaller, even in 1/72 scale anyway. it needs to fly very high, as much as it can, and rely on radars and satellite (gps) input to find its way and conduct business. laser guided freefall bombs for support (with infantry) and gps reliant guided missiles for non infantry aided tasks. these are air to surface. radar guided missiles are abundant already, and these can conduct air to air missions with the support of an awacs nearby even. there are so many possibilities for such an airframe. what you need is just an airframe that carries enough equipment to do the task, and has enough service ceiling and speed and thats it. you dont need risk no highly trained pilot in it - pilot can be thousands of miles away.
aight so was 5th dimension mama and papa's song, and age of aquarius was the cover of 5th dimension. message is the same.
probably in a few years they'll say that one more dimension will flip out. that'll make 5.
so 5th dimension their song ? just what ? i dont get it.
horrible.. horrible. very telling.
we are going to transcend into another dimension with the flip... wait ! thats nothing new is it ! "when the mooooon is in the seveenth houuseeee, and jupiteeerr aliiggnss wiiith maaarss"
maybe mamas and papas got it right.
come get us. with something other than empty threats of course.
you talk like UAV is a concept that is monolithic and compact. it isnt. take the valuable systems you speak of, and put only enough systems to conduct the combat mission, and you'd still have something cheaper than a cruise missile.
if i am able to put more uavs on field due to the relative cheapness compared to the cost of training and keeping a pilot and building and maintaining an aircraft (and i bet i can), i will be having a larger advantage.
hackable/jammable datalinks do not constitute an argument either, for almost all systems the modern aircraft relies on are also hackable and jammable. just, there hasnt been a battle between equally advanced armies, and we havent seen the ecm/eccm carnage in the air yet. when it happens, probably many aircraft systems will be unreliable too. so theres no tradeoff there. Stealth PLUS standoff gives greater margins of safety than "standoff". The enemy may object to your non-stealth bomber or ship off his coast. with stealth plus standoff you dont need the maneuverability of a fighter plane. thats the trick. designing an equivalent of a b52 in a fashion that is stealthy enough (geometrically and material wise) is much more cheaper than designing a fighter plane thats going to outmaneuver opponents in heated dogfight. AND when you count in the amount of ecm/eccm equipment that can be put in such an airframe, the need for stealth becomes doubtable too. heck, you can even put small automated aa defense systems even, to point defense against incoming missiles.
Our ancient 1970s-design fighter airframes need replacement to fill the capability gap between manned and immature unmanned sytems.
no they dont. the current electronic battlefield requirements have already gone over what humans can accommodate. first the fighter plane crew have risen to 2 due to need for maintaining the equipment, and then the need for man machine interaction increased even more.
im liberal, im humanist, im netizen, im even new ager, kind of hippie, but thats way too much. WAY too much.
its already evident what they are trying to do. they are trying to push ms stuff over seemingly open source channels. just HOW many signs and moves you people need to get it ?
metaphysical/paranormal sources might not need to transmit thoughts and feelings telephatically, however, in the case there is not an interpreter present, what is received in the recipient would be probably taken as a thought, feeling of the self, therefore not regarded as an outer communication. this would complicate things. therefore the need for an interpreter.
and where did that come from now ?
i dont see lotr as 'dark'. there were dark elements well placed where they due, but there were very well done lighter elements as well. remember the shire before the journey started.
i look at lotr, and i see a 'grand' scale. and persons, places, events described as they were in the book. this matters.
it is an area of the brain that PROVIDES the ability to take in and process mystical, and even paranormal/psychic interference ?
Geez. you probably have no experience of starcraft and related rts gaming. what you depict has been so much used during 1998-1999 that it is now seen as a sign of noobness. whoever does it gets their ass whipped.
You know the drill - leave your geek card to reception on your way out
they did.
Lotr was one of the most successful book to screen adaptations. And mind that, there are only 4-5 of such successful adaptations.
if, someone can effectively translate the spirit of a book that well to screen, s/he can as well make any irrelevant episode in a lore relevant and in-line.
Pal, there are millions exactly waiting to see that.
I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.
boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.
speaking on behalf of the millions of take-no-chances geeks in fact.
if a movie is done well, no problem. but fool s/he be anyone who would go and take chances on a new director, whereas there is already a director that has done the exact same thing spectacularly well.
either Jackson does it, or we dont watch it.
As of now i have Best Classics 100 Vol 1, (6cd, stuffed with classical music), Best Classics 100 Vol 2 (6cd again), Best Relaxing classics (6 cd again, Best Baroque Classics (again 6 cd).
All are emi's.
I duly ripped them off to my hd, and im listening them wherever, however i want. No holds barred, no restrictions.
I bought all these just over the course of a year. goddamn easy. Up to that point, for over 10 years, i havent bought a single music cd. im serious. then, when i got into classical music a year ago, i thought that instead of p2ping and searching and trying to create a goddamn collection, i could just buy a set. and i did. and im living in a country where copyright doesnt mean jack shit.
result is, i have every kind of shit i can want. winamp gets the info from ccdb databases, and suddenly, as a person who is a total noob when it comes to identifying what piece is whose, i am able to tell them apart from each other.
now im looking for EMI sign whenever i am going to buy some set again. i have decided to go into some latin, saw a set, but saw some other firm's brand on it, which firm has an infamous standing when it comes to drm shit. i just avoided them and now am waiting until i can get something emi, no hassles.
again, he is right.
using up cruise missiles on key targets make great difference. and at this stage id like to remind you that the difference between a cruise missile and a uav is the fact that former is going to be used up.
additionally, if you are going to use stand off equipment, you really dont need to invest in that much high technology anyway - like stealthy fighters and such. whatever a fighter is going to carry as missile payload and use, (from what i remember f14s were able to track 12 targets and guide missiles to 6 of them at the same time) a b52 or any other old airframe modified with early warning systems (awacs and like, they use in hawkeyes) ecm and eccm measures and amraam and other new generation air to air missiles) will do even better. you wont need stealthy red baron like agility of a fighter plane when you are fighting over the horizon missile wars.
and what if, the cash thats spent on getting advanced fighters such as these, is spent on bettering uavs to the level of cruise missiles, and make them deliver payloads ?
much cheaper, requires less crew to train and operate, not barred by physical limitations of human body and easily replaceable.
that is the route air war is taking. and investing in 20 year long big fighter projects will start to be seen as foolhardy decisions, shortly.
Land/sea and air are very different mediums. In land and sea there are much more variables and issues to counter before any automated vehicles can get the upper hand. whereas air is a medium that is more easily manageable - doesnt have hills, rivers, some infantry behind every bush and so on. go high enough, and you can monitor and send missiles over horizon. (phoneix, f14s already were doing that).
air casualty rates are microscopic today because for the last 30 years no major power is fighting against another. whomever major powers are figthing (soviet vs afghan, us vs vietnamese, uk vs argentina) are lacking in many respects even if they have just any equality in any aspect of the war. (argentina having some edge with exocets and etandards, but lacking in all other respects like support, early warning, telecommunications, ecm, eccm).
when any 2 major powers fight, it will come up that expensive, hard to produce manned vehicles will become a liability if the fight is not over very, very soon. and it will be seen that automated systems like tomahawks and other cruise missiles pay out big time.