Posts by Trygve 261 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jun 2007
"Are the people looking after the public's data just incredibly stupid, or do they just not give a shit."
That's a very narrow-minded either/or perspective. You are neglecting the possibility that they may be both incredibly stupid AND that they don't give a shit, which seems quite plausible
Honestly, I was forced to read all three of his books during a wet week in Wales, and they really are pap, and not worth paying any attention to whatsoever. Not worth reading, and not worth arguing about. It seems to offend a lot of people that he's made so much money out of them, but I don't understand why - it's not exactly a secret that mediocrity sells.
If you want some good DB ranting, take a look at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.html - hell hath no fury like an expert in the english language who is reduced to earning a crust by writing articles about Dan Brown. I particularly recommend "Learning the ropes in the trenches with Dan Brown".
Since I'm a bit of a cynic, I'm working on the assumption that:
1 - Spammers don't waste their time trying to game Bing results at the moment. If it ever becomes popular, the spammers will flood that too.
2- Bing has no ads because for now MS are happy to piss away torrents of money in a desperate attempt to be the next Google, and not many people are keen to pay for ads on someone else's loss-leader. If it ever becomes popular, the ads will most certainly follow.
I haven't really played much with Bing, so I'm probably missing a trick or two with regards to the ergonomics. They seem to be identical as far as I can tell (apart from the big left margin, which must hack off anyone with a small screen). Bing looks like Google classic but more grey and square. The desperate me-too vibe even extends to having a googleiffic 'beta' sub-head. In fact, if it wasn't for the top-left links to MSN and Hotmail one might think that it's a product of the New Evil Empire rather than the Old Evil Empire
"GASoline"??? Rubbish. Nobody runs large warships (or large aircraft) on gasoline - too flammable, too bulky and too expensive.
Gas, produced by the combustion of something (usually kerosene/diesel) acting directly on the turbine blades, as opposed to being used to boil water which the acts on the turbine blades as in the more traditional STEAM turbine.
" if it is so obvious that STOVL is inferior to CV, why has the UK based its strategy for carrier-borne capability around STOVL?"
Because - a STOVL carrier is a bit cheaper to build in the short run, and the UK has been run for the last 50+ years by a various cheapskate morons with aspirations, who given a choice between buying:
- five generic spanners for £5 each, once
- one chrome-vanadium socket wrench for £30, once
- one flimsy chrome-plated socket wrench for £20, replacing when it breaks every year
will go for the last option, every time. Hence why the UK armed forces are always broke, always using the wrong kit, and always pissed off.
In the past it's always been a choice between STOVL carriers or no carriers. No doubt if they ever get round to aquiring a proper CATOBAR carrier they will cancel all the minesweepers & destroyers to pay for it, so it daren't leave port.
Counterfeit in the sense of it's something completely different from the chemical you thought you were consuming.
You don't seriously think that some random crim who's selling illegal pills to morons on the internet is going to spend serious money making actual pharmaceuticals, when they can just use a bit of food colouring, sugar and denture adhesive instead?
Wow, you really have had a sense of humour failure, haven't you? Or are you such a desperate geek that you are unaware that there are non-IT uses for many words.?
Don't install windows because people can jump out of them. Lowest form of wit and all that, but you can't have a proper tragedy without a sick joke or two.
So I click on the V&A link, pick a random photo that turns out to be from 1864, click on it, get a low-res web pic and an 'order high-res image' button, click on the button and am presented with a menu of different usage scenarios on a pageful of licencing conditions and T&Cs, in order to request permission to use the image and perhaps maybe receive a copy.
Brooklyn museum seems to have nothing more than web res pics.
Smithsonian Images are all low-res web junk unless you want to pay - 600DPI images are a mere $200 a pop. Smithsonian Institution has some medium-res pics up on their flick photostream, but only 1500 images or so.
The wikilovesart just seems to be the work of Joe Q Public using cameras to take pictures of display cases with stuff in them. Wow.
Did you have an actual point?
...you can easily and legally prevent someone making copies of works you own, but once a copy has been made you can't prevent it being ripped off by every Tom Dick & Harry for free.
Want to take a guess at how many museum and gallery managers will be deciding to stick to hardcopy in future?
@pianom4n - Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension? On the Library of Congress page you yourself link to, it says "Not all images displayed in this catalog are in the public domain." IN BOLD no less.
It then continues "The Library offers broad public access to these materials as a contribution to education and scholarship. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." Not exactly carte blanche is it?
"Let us not be distracted by the Britards angry at the Ameritards ("yankee theiving [sic] bastards") and instead concentrate on how a British public institution gets to privatise the public domain"
Oh please do go and get stuffed. How the hell is something in the public domain if it only exists in legally purchased hardcopy exhibited on private property? Do you seriously imagine that Lucien Freud produced his works in photoshop at 300dpi?
It's very simple indeed to figure out who owns any painting in the world - you see who holds the bill of sale for the canvas with the daubs on it. Anything else is a derivative work created by somebody else. The only reason there is any debate at all in this instance is that the NPG was stupid enough to try getting involved with the TardWebs.
Based on the response so far, that's one lesson no other museum/gallery will be making. Cash at the door, no photography under any circumstances, prints/calendars/mugs/t-shirts available in the gift shop, end of story. If you try getting 'modern' all your expensive digital images will be immediately splurged across thousands of crappy little websites before you blink, and every third-rate printshop on the planet will be using them to make knockoffs of the prints that generate a big chunk of your income. Why invest in bankrupting yourself?
As a UK taxpayer who is helping to pay for all the activities of the National Portrait Gallery, I hope they stop pissing away money on digitising anything. If "science and art belong to the whole world and before them vanish the barriers of nationality" , then the whole world can damn well chip in $2 apiece to buy the damn paintings and digitise them. I don't see why I should have to subsidse the art-surfing proclivities of a bunch of free-loading webtards.
There are plenty of decent photos of these pictures rattling about in acution catalogs, history books and whatnot that people can scan and use in a properly attributed way, or they could even fill in a simple form and cough up a little money to the museums who use my money to buy all these artworks, restore them, display them, provide security, cataloging and all the other support services that highly valuable old bits of handmade junk require.
Since that seems incompatible with the general intertard viewpoint, balls to the whole thing. No entry ticket to the NPG, no looking at the pictures. You want the pretty piccies, you can cough up a six or seven figure sum to buy the originals and then do whatever you want with them (usually hang them on the wall of a spare apartment somewhere to provide a talking point for the occasional cocktail party).
" wonder if the Google OS will play The Sims? Or Half-Life 2? Or Crysis? The *other* major branch of domestic PC users are gamers, and unless it has DX10 and comprehensive hardware support to run on the machines required, this PC OS will be pointless to them."
Pah. Providing it will run PopCap-type games (seems feasible) then that's all it will need to keep the average game player happy. Don't forget that Bejeweled Twist alone has pulled in over $300M so far, and the most played computer games on the planet are probably things like Snake on mobile phones and Solitaire. People like me who piss away hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on dedicated games PCs and tons of high-end games are a tiny tiny tiny part of the computer-using population, just like the tiny handfuls of people who actually do proper video/image editing or programming.
Icybox IB-NAS902 - only has 100Mb ethernet (hence dog slow) and I don't think it has ADS import capability either. Good bit of kit, but definitely on the cheap and cheerful side. I deeply regret not having got something with GigE.
The Icybox IB-NAS4210 is probably a better bet, but that's about £80 and if you want media server capability you have to cough up some more after the TwonkyMedia trial runs out.
I thought the best bit was when the NRO's head security nerd couldn't be reached for a desperate emergency because he had his head in a mainframe fixing it with a soldering iron and let his mobile go to voicemail.
From an e-book perspective, there are a ton of free books out there that are actually well worth reading, and if you like classics they can justify an e-reader on their own. Actual commercial releases can be a real con, sometimes costing as much as a paperback.
Dan Brown books would be poor value for money if they were free. I actually read all three when stuck in Wales with nothing else, and I fear my IQ has been permanently lowered as a result. They're a bit like the Jeremy Kyle show in book form.
TeeCee - I agree 100%. In my experience, if the Germans and scandinavians are in consensus that something is plenty good enough, it will be a better choice than whatever half-baked crap the Brits use as an alternative. There's no excuse for a plug that's bigger than many of the gadgets it's attached to.
@Lionel Baden. Easy to disassemble? Why in the name of god should you need to disassemble a plug in this day and age? Most consumers can barely be trusted to sign their own names without drooling. Letting them assemble a plug, or replace a blown fuse with whatever they have lying around that fits in the hole, is nothing but a fire hazard. Remember when they changed the law to insist on molded-on plugs with appliances because of the number of people doing it wrong?
Trygve Henriksen - Blimey, there are two of us. Are you by any chance the prolific Psion enthusiast that everyone keeps mistaking me for?
I believe the usual procedure is for the politically favoured lash-up being awared the deal on the basis of a bid structured on Real_Cost*0.3, Real_Time*0.5, Real_Jobs_Created*3, Perceived_Strategic_Independence*15. This is formula is usually enough to edge out whatever is on offer from the US/Israelis/Swedes/Russians/Brazilians/Congolese/Ukranians until such time as it's too late to cancel the order for the gold-plated turd.
IME RFPs etc are usually written to justify the choice of a particular vendor or product, not the other way round - I can't imagine the public sector is any different
No, you're just a moron. Individual users who don't want to see porn don't have to, obviously. The issue is how do you stop individuals who DO want to see porn from accessing it via the network you control in an office/school/monastery/prison/deathstar/whatever.
Microsofts suggestion seems far more complex than the obvious alternative of just redirecting bing.com to google.com, which is what I'd do.
What are you on about? On version 9 you can switch jscript default on/off at the browser level and then override that on a site-by-site basis using the site preferences. I think it's been like that for several versions.
A push of the F12 key and a couple of mouseclicks isn't as easy as it might be, but it still works well enough for those who like to wear a web-condom and only remove it for trusted partners.
So please explain the 'public service' delivered by the BBC, which these days splits its efforts between
-Celebrity X-Factor Apprentice on Ice, BeastEnders and other low-rent swill
-Pointless arts programmes watched by a handful of chin-stroking arts graduates
-Trying to be a commercial operation in the rest of the world?
Public services are things like street lighting, healthcare, policing and so on. Ad-free radio and TV is not a public benefit that justifies confiscating money from those who are not interested in contributing voluntarily.
If I could save £139 back in return for giving up half an hour of Radio 2 every day, I'd definitely go for it. The tiny amount of BBC TV I watch is nearly all repeats on Dave - complete with ad breaks.
We're not great consumers of TV shows, and the vast majority of what we do watch is US imports.
"in Google's Hands" Oh noes, Google has my data instead of EDS or IBM or Satayam or TCS or Logica or Fujitsu having their paws on it. So what? You pick the company you want to manage the data you own, you pay them lots of money, and you get on with running your business. Who has their own staff running their email servers these days?
"amount may very well cripple a company that for all its mischevinous has without a doubt assisted in pushing Technology to where it is today."
Maybe you should give up commenting on things you know nothing about. Even in the current dire economy Intel posted a profit (after taxes, fines, and all other costs are paid) of $670million in the first three months of this year alone. In a normal year they'd trouser well over $5 billion in profit off $35billion+ in sales. They could easily afford to pay the whole fine out of one years profits and still have plenty left over.
A billion isn't chump change to anyone, but if Intel make a huge profit instead of a ginormous profit for one year it isn't the end of the world.
"These aren't night carrier landings, for the love of pete. It's just the sort of thing a computer can (and should) do better than an operator."
I believe that many carrier aircraft have autoland systems that are capable of operating in hands-off mode if necessary, specifically for poor/no-vis landings. The F/A-18 has an auto-takeoff (complete with 'towel rail' for pilots to hold in order to ensure their sticky paws are off the controls). Apart from job security there's probably no reason why you couldn't set up a buttonpush for "take off, fly to mission area and then wake up pilot" and another for "play soothing music to pilot while returning to base and landing". Automating the "strafing of friendly troops, dangerous stunt flying, arrogance and habitual sexual harrasment" part of the piloting job might take another few years...
"Right. As I said, reach of BBC services tends towards 95% per month. I can't therefore claim you're lying, because you could be one of the 5% which research suggests doesn't directly consume BBC output."
Are you a BBC shill or are you just a moron?
We're all PAYING 140 quid a year to fund a tidal wave of content which the BBC pumps out via dozens of TV channels, radio stations, magazines, books and whatnot in an effort to justify it's existence. The whole country is wall-to-wall with BBC material WE'VE PAID FOR, of course 95% of us encounter 5 mins of BBC radio/TV or a paragraph of web content in a month. Do you expect us to walk around with our eyes closed and our fingers in our ears in order to make some obscure point?
I listen to half an hour of Radio 2 every morning and average maybe 1 hour of BBC TV a week. Why not? I'm being billed £12/month for it anyway.
To me, the BBC is worth maybe £3.50/mo and if I had a choice I'd rather give up the BBC completely than pay more than that. But I don't get a choice because the BBC knows most people think its poor value for money and therefore won't let us choose.
Eastenders? Celebrity Xfactor on Ice? Alan's Apprentice Arselicker? All shite. Don't want.
BBC News - a few talking heads regurgitating 24/7 what comes in on the Reuters/AP/Bloomberg newsfeeds and any press releases they've received. CNN/Sky News copied by civil servants. Don't want.
Only things they broadcast worth watching are a few nature docs and a bit of comedy. All the real gold from the archives like Yes Minister, Reggie Perrin etc. you have to pay for on DVD - despite having funded its making in the first place. Thiving gits.
As for the notion that they're ad-free - only if you don't count the endless BBC 'idents' and trailers. Anyone who seriously wants ad-free TV can buy a PVR for less than the cost of 1 years licence fee.
Unbiased? A laughable assertion.
Bollocks to the lot of them. Make it all subscription-only and see how they get on, if they are so bloody marvellous. They can join all the other turds jostling for position in the Freeview/FreeSat/Sky shit-torrent pouring into the nations living rooms.
"WTF? Last time I checked TV and books hadn't yet become one with the internet so your comment is outright irrelevant."
So you have never heard of YouTube and Google Books, I take it? Or those clever devices popularly known as scanners? That's without getting into the joyous world of P2P.
The reason books and TV haven't merged with the internet is at least in part because an awful lot of people spend all day every day working to stop it happening.
I can imagine the BBC would somewhat get the hump if our boy Mike were to upload the latest Attenborough documentary, or put up a nice little website containing high-res pics of every page in the Top Gear 2009 annual. Goose sauce, gander sauce.
"He's transformed Russia and greatly improved the standard of living of it's citizens by bringing stability and a (gradually) increasing distribution of wealth."
Or in other words, he got lucky for a few years as the increasingly silly oil price papered over the gaping chasms in the Russian economy.
"a careful balance of power" - meaning that his only objection to small countries being terrorized by a larger one is if the US is doing the bullying.
Putin is a prick - now that the price of oil and metals is in the toilet, the Russian economy will fall apart, meaning that millions of citizens are about to pay the price for Pooty-poots obsession with playing Mighty Tsar when he should have been sorting out the plumbing. He might not be as dumb as W, but he's no better as a leader.
Why only MS? Possibly because they have been busted multiple times by the EU (and the US, for that matter) over dodgy business behaviour, and never made any significant effort to toe the line despite being fined billions, whereas Apple and Canonical haven't (yet). Or maybe it's because they are the only company with a 90% market share on the consumer desktop. Or maybe it's a bit of both.
Similarly, I'm sure Mr Vikram Patel's phone-booth sized corner shop might be able to bend the employment rules a bit more than, say, Wal-Mart. Once you become a globe-straddling colossus of capitalism, you need to mind your step, because people will be watching you.
The bloke in charge of MS browser strategy is incapable of constructing a sentence, never mind a product.
"listening very critically for classically what's called" - oh dear.
"behaves the way you should expect the final product behaves" - oh dear again.
"The test suite and spec are a moment in time right now." - the test suite is brief period on a timeline? What?
"Go tell the Concorde pilot, the one that crashed in a hotel in 2000, two minutes after take off, go tell him he simply was'nt trained enough. Oh sorry, he's dead."
Yep - that's what having a mishap in a plane at the cutting edge of early-sixties Anglo-French supersonic technology will do for you.
If he'd been flying a nice new Airbus or Boing incorporating 40-odd years of incremental safety enchancements the chances are he and everyone else on board would have been fine. Because lots of people who are good at sums and stuff spend a good deal of time and effort making these incidents more surviveable with each new design - which was sort of the point of the article, I think.
And for how long did the Xbox division do nothing but piss away oodles of money harvested from buyers of Office and Windows? It's not so hard to get to the top of your industry if your competitors have to turn a profit but you need only concern yourself about building market share and bleeding everybody else white. Now we can all get ready for phase 3 in the Standard MS Business Plan
1-Launch substandard product
2-Subsidise with profits from WinOffice monopoly while eliminating competition by fair means or foul
3-Profit!
So the EU bullied it's well-known domestic airlines of Quantas, Emirates and Singapore into ordering the plane? And forced airports all over the world to upgrade their facilites to accommodate the Great White Whale?
Methinks someone is over-estimating the global clout of Brussels by several orders of magnitude.
Crazy as it sounds, the design task of most tanks is to fight other tanks. Of course a 60-70 ton armoured box with a 120+mm gun is also useful for a few other things on the battlefield, but that's just a side effect. If you can instead rely on a (relatively) cheap box of rockets to deal with enemy MBTs, then you can instead spunk a ton more money on APCs, SPGs, mortars, light recce vehicles and all the other kit that armies tend to make a lot more use of than their tanks.
Some people predicted the death of the battleship when Holland launched his first submarine. That time they were wrong. Then people like Mitchell predicted the death of the battleship due to air power. They turned out to be right a few years later. Similarly there were claims manned aircraft were obsolete in the fifties - now we are finally getting to the point where more and more of their work is being done by UAVs.
It's too early to tell if this box of tricks will actually perform as advertised, but history suggests that all weapon systems eventually become obsolete and sooner or later the MBT will join the horse, war elephant, chariot and siege tower in the history books. It's just a question of recognising the moment, because abandoning them too early or too late would be very unpleasant.
"Taking into account that CT officers routinely perform all searches and that they could be OAP search officers, why does the MET call them CT officers."
I'd guess because they're parked in the organisation diagram underneath 'Counter-Terrorism' since their jobs are at somewhat related to that heading and the bureaucrats are desperately trying to maximise the number of doughbags supposedly protecting us from t'evil. "Al-Quaeda terrorists are being tracked by OAP Search Officers on secondment" wouldn't give the Daily Mail a rosy glow now would it? I'd bet most of their time is spent doing normal day-to-day coppering, though.
In the same way most "CT Officers" spend their time reassuring the sheeple by loitering around Westminster or an airport carrying an MP5 and fantasising about pies rather than actually countering anything.
Look at the PDF AC linked to above. A proposed method for "Robotic modular imbedding of steel mesh reinforcement into each layer" is described and illustrated at the bottom of page 4, and wire reinforcement at the top of page 6.
They may not ever get their uber-robo-brickie to work reliably, but the bulgy-bonced boffins are way ahead of you amateurs.
So which hardware OEM do we blame for the infamous 'Long Goodbye' bug then? When people with 4gig of RAM, quad-core processors and TechNet subscriptions can't get simple file operations like copy or delete to work reliably, one has to suspect that perhaps the world is not as simple as you like to make out.
Bill and his golden ring, since I think that's what you are kissing
You people are friggin kidding. I live in Streatham Common, at least 15km from Heathrow, and frequently get to experience long-haul planes going overhead making enough noise to drown out normal conversation at a sunday barbecue.
According to the grauniad BA 26 (5 am every morning) hits two million people with at least 50 decibels. The idea that everyone who is inconvenienced by LHR noise is some sort of nimby is just ludicrous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/19/pollution.theairlineindustry
I'd be surprised if many modern freighters ever hit 20 knots, never mind 30. The relationship between speed and energy is generally non-linear in the bad way. Even the military don't go racing around unless they really have to, since they don't want to run out of fuel in the middle of the ocean.
Cruising at ~30 knots is a challenge for anything without a nuclear powerplant.
What is wrong with all you people? If you insist on visting that motorcycle site, at least go the MAIN PAGE http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ , where you can read the tosh claiming that although it was all made up, it was done to make the world a better place. Or you can google "chernobyl motorcycle hoax".
As for those welsh hill farmers, their sheep were't growing tentacles or dropping dead. They were placed under restriction by MAFF, and even if they exceed the radiation limit that only means they need to be grazed in the lowlands until they drop under the limit. Whether the radiation limit of 1000Bq/Kilo actually make sense or not is never discussed, but it makes a lovely talking point for the anti-nuclear lobby, just like the oh-so-lethally contaminated Irish Sea - which produces lots of lovely seafood you can eat every day of your life without making a material difference to your radiation dosage. Just because the nuke industry is trying to pick the taxpayers pocket doesn't mean you all need to blindly swallow whatever you're spoon-fed by Greenpeace et al.
"the GPS isn't really GPS (it's 'assisted'- i.e. using cell towers and the like)"
Sweet merciful jeebus. Is there some new law that people are only allowed to write stuff on the intertubes if they don't understand what they are wittering on about?
GPS - magic chip that works out where it is from listening to satellites. Can take ages to work out where it is from a cold start in poor signal conditions. In the original versions of the N95 and much better than the mast triangulation of Jesus Phone 1.0
Assisted GPS - aforementioned magic chip, PLUS witchcraft to speed up working out where it is from a cold start (by asking the phone mast 'roughly where am I?'). Much better than plain GPS. In later versions of the N95.
So in the hardware GPS stakes Jesus Phone 2.0 is pretty much the same as the latest N95, and they are both pretty much as good as you will get without buying a dedicated GPS unit.
Please move fanboy squabbles to the topic of mapping software, where there are probably some actual differences to twist knickers over.
"When they see a number that stays in one location for 10 hours every night, would it really be that difficult to check the electoral register and find out who lives at that address?"
What address? what are you talking about? Making the huge assumption that they did the study in the way they claim, the only "address" information they would have is the location of the cell tower the phone is spending most of it's 'home' time talking to.
Given that cells are typically inversely sized to user density, the only time they would be able to narrow it down to a small geographic area would usually be when that small area is full of apartment buildings and such - so there's still no way of figuring out individual identities without an NSA-sized correlation exercise against other data sets. In my London suburb, even a picocell or whatever covering only a few hundred square metres would cover at least half-a-dozen residences and probably twenty GSM devices. An actual tower would probably have several hundred devices associated with it at any time.
They might have done the study in some crazy country where cells regularly only had a handful of devices in them - but then I think they would have been seeing much longer journes as people trek through the wilderness on a daily basis.
"One final thing; how would you feel if *you* were on a Chinook that got a little beat up 'on the job' and then got told "Sorry lads, we're not coming to fix your ride home out there as it's not in our job description"."
I'd wonder which how that came about when I personally know people who spent their RAF careers fixing Chinooks, including Gulf War 1. If Kawasaki can BUILD the things in Japan, and Finmeccanica can BUILD the things in Italy, it seems fair to assume that the MoD could have it's personnel repair the things if it chose (provided it can stump up wages rougly equivalent to what a decent mechanic would earn in a Ford dealership). It is, after all, basically a 1960's design.
However, at the moment that's an empty discussion, since the 'ride out' is the same as the 'ride in' - typically a soft-skinned wheeled vehicle since helicopters are practically strategic assets for the UK, which is pretty piss-poor since they are just flying trucks. If you asked the average squaddie in Iraq whether they'd prefer a handful of non-working Merlin's, a larger handful of usually-working Chinooks, or a great big bucketful of crappy old third-hand often-working choppers they'd go for the latter - even a Wessex is better than no helicopter at all.
But who wants to lease a fleet of grubby white Transits to deliver parcels when they could buy a couple of shiny Porsche Kayennes? Someone who wanted to get a real job done, that's who - and there's no-one like that in defence procurement.
Even though I have no military background, it would seem to me that having lots of powerful and ready to fly (but with a definite but small chance of crashing because of shite software) helicopters is preferable to the alternative of having a tiny handful of small, weak helicopters which are permanently in bits being repaired. Because then at least you have a choice whether or not you wish to risk driving past the IEDs, or prefer the risk of flying.
" one Chinook is only worth two Merlins if you happen to want to send everything to one place" - both Merlins will most likely not be in a fit state to fly anywhere at all. Did you miss the part in the article where the full fleet of 22 Merlins boiled down to an average of four airframes in operation at the sharp end?
Kamov, Mil, Boeing, Sikorsky, Eurocopter- there are other manufacturers out there, and if you place a big enough order they'll set up a production line in your country and hand you all the technology you want, so I don't see why everyone is so stressed about shopping foreign for some bits of gear that British troops (who may be from Nepal, Fiji, Jamaica, Ghana, South Africa or wherever). The Italians are having their new Chinooks built by none other than AgustaWestland, using the same production line Finmeccanica used for the ones they are currently using.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
