Posts by sphery
6 posts • joined Saturday 5th March 2011 21:49 GMT
Good theory--and true that they can call an aircraft whatever they want--but I think the statement, "As for stocking the ship, the Chinese F-15 multi-role aircraft is in testing for carrier landings," simply has a typo. The aircraft shown is the Shenyang J-15 ( http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/Shenyang_J-15 ). Note how J and F are both typed with the same finger--but using different hands (at least for those of us who are touch typists).
The J-15 "Flying Shark" was structurally based on the Russian Sukhoi Su-33 design, but was not built under license. The Russians even called it a "clone" of the Su-33. The J-15's predecessor, the J-11 ( http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 ), however, was built by Shenyang under a production agreement with Russia from 1995 until 2006, when Russia cancelled the agreement 2 years after Shenyang started development of their own variant, the J-11B, which they are still building unlicensed.
Does that count as "hacking" to get Russian military secrets?
Further proof
"We are also developing countermeasures to prevent these security credentials from being stolen or duplicated."
This just proves security should /always/ be developed by politicians and administrators. It seems they're going with the well-documented "security through obscurity" approach rather than trying to roll their own...
Posted in Dying to make greener batteries
Technically speaking...
wouldn't the batteries be a redder/pinker/oranger if they're using purpurin?
Guess they can't use Nokia's tech
since they couldn't claim to be the only ones... Nokia's ClearBlack display sounds like it's exactly what they need: http://www.oled-info.com/nokia-clearblack-display-cbd
I thought it was obvious
Q: "USB 3.0, which goes by the unfortunate marketing moniker of SuperSpeed USB (what is USB 4.0 going to be called, SuperlativeSpeed USB?)"
A: LudicrousSpeed USB
Patent-ly ridiculous
I'm a huge fan of--and user and developer of--Free/Libre and Open Source Software, but I also recognize that it's nearly (completely?) impossible to create any non-trivial software, today, without violating any software patents. Therefore, I have no doubt that VP8/WebM is in violation of many patents, and even the FFmpeg developers have said as much--see http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 , in the paragraph starting, "Finally, the problem of patents appears to be rearing its ugly head again."
That said, it's amazing that the US DoJ is investigating under antitrust laws what amounts to a coalition of patent holders who are attempting to enforce the patents granted them by the USPTO. Since even the Department of Justice can't understand how the US patent system works, it seems clear that US patent law is in dire need of reform--ideally, including the abolishment of software patents. (After all, patents are for inventions--copyright is for ideas!)
