5 posts • joined 1 Mar 2008
Anyone consider that....
some people go through great measures to steal newborns and infants.
It may be unlikely that this case will result in such an instance, but here in the U.S. (yes, we are all evil) there have been multiple cases of mothers being murdered by INFORMED CRIMINALS who take their fully gestated child via back alley C-sections.
I'm a father with a 2 year old. When we went to the hospital for the delivery both my wife and I received I.D. bracelets. Is this same practice followed on the other side of the pond? Is it the case that the U.K. has no psychotics or criminals?
This is not IT, but it is serious.
@Anonymous Coward - My Response
>> "Joint" as in "Joint Service", actually - the F35 is to be deployed by both the US Air Force and the US Navy. An aircraft capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground is either 'multi-role' or 'swing-role' (the new name for 'multi-role').
You forgot the U.S. Marines, they use the JSF as well. What, your calling me out on phraseology? That's pathetic. Oh, "Joint role" vs. "Joint Service"... you don't seem to get my point, which is that the word "joint" was intended to reference their use across multiple branches of military(s), NOT to symbolize a multinational development effort (regardless of whether you believe such an effort existed).
>> And as a self-appointed 'JSF expert' you must surely have heard of the F-35B, as intended for the Royal Navy, no? The one with the moving tailpipe? The moving tailpipe designed by BAe? Nothing to do with GD, methinks. And what the heck is "their model 200"? Do you mean the Gulfstream 200 civil business jet? Funny, I don't recall seeing any bizjets doing VTOLs recently...
I meant their Model 200 experimental aircraft. It's not exactly top secret, take 5 minutes and do your own research.
I never claimed to be an expert, I only asserted that another individuals statement was incorrect. For example, "the JSF can't super-cruise", do you disagree with this statement?
The F-35B isn't intended for the Royal Navy, That's a deliberate oversimplification. I believe that it's actually intended for 8 (possibly more) nations militarys. I also believe that the largest customer nation is the United States (combined purchases of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines). If it was "intended" for any specific nation, surely it would be for the largest customer, eh? Not a little Island which outgrew it's glory days centuries ago (that should spark some flames).
>> As an aside, I used to work as a full-time, "company employee" for BAe, on a site that housed a "joint development" team from Lockheed Martin (and that was in 1994, fact-lovers!) so I have personal experieince of how long they've been working with/ripping off BAe.
"fact-lovers!" You have to be kidding me, just because you say it doesn't make it fact.
If you were in fact an employee of BAE, then haven't you just illustrated that they employ individuals who can't be trusted to keep your mouth shut?
a) The J in JSF implies that the aircraft serves a joint role as an air-to-land and air-to-air platform (thereby serving all branches of target military(s)). The J does NOT indicate that this was a joint project between the US and the UK. The platform was designed in America by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.
b) The F-35 can't super-cruise, to fly above Mach 1 it must use it's afterburners. You're confusing it with the F-22 Raptor, which can super-cruise.
c) When you refer to VTOL I can only assume that your talking about the exhaust duct technology built by General Dynamics (an American company, based in Virginia) for their model 200. I don't know details of any foreign partnerships on that project, but it is irrelevant anyway. Choosing not to incorporating thrust vectoring was a mistake that made the F-35 less agile then it could have been. What is your argument, that without the UK the US would have been forced to make a better aircraft?
Do you actually know anything about the JSF?
I think the bigger picture is that certain technology can cause harm if it falls into the wrong hands. No, I'm not implying the UK here. The concern is that BAE, being a profit generating entity, will whore itself out to the wrong people who happen to have the right funds. The funny thing about weapon platforms is that once your enemy gets their hands on a sample, they're 50% down the path to defeating it.
Stirling engine performance is based on the temperature coefficient, in this case, chip set surface temp. vs. ambient case temp. If the case is properly ventilated, and assuming the room is reasonably cool, then this thing should operate fairly efficiently.
What happens in situations where the case is poorly ventilated, or the room begins to get warm... Seems to me that the chip set surface temp will have to rise (and continue to operate at a higher temp.) to make this work in a warmer environment.
Factor in the piston seals and the complex mechanical nature of converting reciprocating motion into rotary motion in a generally dusty/dirty environment...
I'll stick with my 12VDC fans with RPM monitoring for all my PC cooling needs.
Some of You are Missing the Point
Read the patent, the infringement is not based on caller id/telephone number display. It is based on the action of joining the telephone number from caller id with the data in your contacts database *stored on the phone*. Don't confuse this with the *enhanced* caller id that you get on your landlines, where the data is joined at the phone companies CO, then encoded and transmitted in the ring pulse.
Truth: At some point this was someone's *original idea*, hence patentable (there may be prior art chronologically, apple can do this research).
For those who argue that this is an obvious idea, may I suggest that your opinion might be have been partially influenced by the fact that the phones you've been using have done this for some time. If taking the number from caller id and joining it to the phone's contact data for the user to see prior to accepting the call was so obvious, why didn't you submit a patent 18 years ago?
**Additionally, don't make statements about how this patent holder is attacking Apple, and that he should also go after all of the companies that produce similar product. This isn't a valid argument unless you know that he hasn't, which is not likely the case. This is an IT based site, we should expect better logic in our statements.
- Review Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Great changes, but sssh don't mention the...
- Vid CEO Tim Cook sweeps Apple's inconvenient truths under a solar panel
- Antique Code Show WTF happened to Pac-Man?
- HTC mulls swoop for Nokia's MASSIVE Chennai plant
- Study shows dangerous asteroid impacts hit Earth every six months