Posts by nigglec 17 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Jun 2011
With modern systems I would have thought that EW would be much more limited than historic systems. How hard is it to add an additional visual sensor and algorithm to identify the actual ship. I suppose if the EW is good enough the missile will find itself too far away to do anything, but I would have thought that more focus on active protection systems is the future.
Is it me or is this a little short sighted?
As others have stated, online threats are not great at abiding by physical borders. Why just EU countries and not worldwide? Although to be fair a multinational unit (especially called a 'cyber force') will be ineffective at what it should be doing and a bureacrats wet dream of wastage.
However, a multinational co-operative framework should be in everyones interest.
Rather than a full national scheme why not build a short proper proof of concept route.
Something like Heathrow to Gatwick (air side to airside). I know the time/speed savings won't be as much but I can't see a completely new technlogy that would cost billions extended to the whole country before some shorter routes are done.
Obviously the council should not be publishing personal details but if those personal details were included in the planning permission as justification for the proposed building etc. I can see how they would slip through the gaps. Planning permissions are meant to be public record (with good reason!) but if someone states that they need X,Y,Z built and it wouldn’t be authorised if there were no medical/disability component then the medical/disability reason has to be a matter of public record. However, I’m not saying for one moment that the level of detail that seems to have been published in this case is justified.
As to the scale of the fine: no problem with the actual amount per se but I don’t know if I would be happy with it all going to the family concerned. I think you would have to make a very, very good case to justify personal damage/stress etc. for that amount.
Just a thought, but rather than concentrate on a standard rifle and slug would a strong enough laser do the job? No worries about wind or leaving behind evidence. I'd imagine that a non-moving target full of stuff that goes bang wouldn't react too well to a prolonged thermal spot. the flash seen might just be standard light reflecting off the optics/casing....
I'm not really suggesting that ULA were really to blame but.............Okay I'll get my coat.
Agree politician being the scum they are arn't likely to be sentimental as to the result. I'll just point out though that the Welsh devolution referendum with a turnout of 50.2% and a winning margin of 50.3% to 49.7% was declared a triumph for democracy and a clear imperative to pursue the creation of a Welsh assembly. That was Tony Blair mind.....
Icon? Well the child catcher told fewer lies than both sides!
At some point you have to trust the manufacturer's guarantee especially if it requires destructive testing of the component. It is all well and good saying a company should test a representative sample all the time but that is what the original manufacturer should have been doing. The question is: if a significant number failed to meet spec why didn’t the manufacturer pick that up in their own testing? I can see lawsuits on the horizon……
"First to file" is so much better than "first to invent". Saves so much potential for dodgy court cases.
Successful product on the market for years suddenly gets sued by someone with "proof", sort of that they invented the same concept before the other guys. The proof is all perfectly legit m'lud, honest!
The current system can be abused but its still saves a hell of a lot of arguments later. If it is shown that there is already an existing product on the market you just don't (shouldn't!) get your patent granted.
And I say that as I have just had to drop a patent application because a MSc thesis that had been mouldering away in a university's library just got published online invalidating my application. It was considered "prior art" because it was still originally "published" and in the "public domain" even though the only way of finding out about it was to go to the actual american university library in question.
At last someone who describes the bulk of the environment lobby as they really are: a bunch of illogical nutters who try and use fear and hysteria to get their way. You can care about the environment and still be in favour of progress. If we want power/oil/gas for our little creature comforts we have to take some calculated risks, personally I’d prefer half a dozen nuclear power stations than 1,000s of windmills, but that may be just me.
I think everyone agrees that trident won't protect against a genuine independent terrorist attack. However, is it realistic to think that a genuine terrorist could get hold of a true to god nuke (not a dirty bomb) without support from a government? They might try like mad by themselves but as they haven't managed it yet are they likely to in future?
Any government that helped a terrorist attack another nuclear armed country would have to be real certain that it couldn't be traced back to them. If it was, you know their capital would be number one on the targeting list. That in itself would deter many a rogue government. Not foolproof but certainly not to be ignored.
I'd like to see the costing for building more than four Vanguard replacement subs. Would it not be possible to design them to be able to switch from the ICBM role to a conventional cruise missile launcher like the US did with their old subs (Ohio class?).
How much more expensive would they be over the Astutes? Drop a couple of planned extra Astute class boats and replace with the dual capable SSBNs. Its not as if some of the roles that the current attack subs are designed for couldn't be done by a conventionally armed SSBN, like firing cruise missiles at Afghanistan. Would give us extra options, and if you're planning for the future you need to keep your options open.
I'm confused. Say you were to pay for a storage locker in the physical world and that the operator got into trouble for allowing others to store illegal items in their lockers. As I understand it the US gov is saying it would have a right to seize not only the storage lockers but all property held within them by the storage operator irrespective of to whom each item belonged to or whether it was a perfectly legal item. I can't believe that would be the case in the real world and I believe there should be no difference in the cloud. Just because I'm paying someone for storage in an electronic medium should not mean that I lose the legal ownership of that file. If the terms and conditions of the cloud storage provider state that I do lose ownership, I can see an urgent need to amend those conditions in light of this.
"use the increasing number of lawful services which exist..."
If only the lawful services were of a reasonable quality. That may change but the likes of Lovefilm and other online, instant access TV/film media services have extremely limited selection compared to the vast array of piratable torrents.
If you want to sit down on a Sunday afternoon and watch a random old movie or an old episode of a particular sitcom, you are out of luck. Legally that is......
Maybe by 2015 the legal online sites might be up to scratch. If so, I and many others might actually use them.
Just got back from the soon to be “nuclear free” Germany. Considering the huge numbers of wind turbines all over the place and the fact that they are going to have to start importing leccy from nuclear France why can’t they just build one or two conventional power plants. If the nimbys think that new nuclear is so unsafe, they should realise that if a new nuke plant went up like Chernobyl (Impossible!) in France it would still make them glow in the dark.
Reliable renewables are few and far between. How much more hydro could we realistically build in this country? And we know that the environmentalists would go “nuclear” if you started talking Severn barrage tidal generation.
I believe electricity should be either government or not for profit owned. We should have a far greater energy efficiency policy and increase micro generation as much as possible. New build housing should by default have photovoltaic or thermal panels installed. Buying leccy from other countries is just lazy and costly, but is politically an easier thing to sell than the harsh reality of new nuclear/coal /gas power plants.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
