I can't see the hairs on real people 10 feet away (for normal arm hair), if I can see the hairs on someone's arm on TV, why are they zoomed in on someone's arm?
I suspect that the format might fit a certain popular film niche, in which seeing the actor's body hairs is in fact considered a desirable feature.
The problem with that solution is that now I've got _two_ instances of Windows to secure and maintain. Twice the RAM, two licences for Kasperski, twice the updates, twice the exposure to threats.
So how do I configure my graphics designer's Windows box to look like a VM so that the malware won't run?
You make a good point. I can imagine three to five drones attacking, say, Times Square at New Years. I really cannot imagine that happening with mortars.
Even if the Times Squares drones are unarmed, just having them buzzing close to the people might scare the people into a stampede, with tens or even hundreds of casualties. The technology can be legally purchased for a few thousand dollars, today. And the perps would be almost impossible to find.
You do have a good point. I wonder how lopsided the drone / antidrone equation really is.
One fell right outside my house. My building and all the surrounding buildings took damage. Every vehicle on the street was destroyed. Luckily, the alarms sounded and everyone outside was in a shelter at the time (including myself and my family) so there were no human injuries..
I don't know how much they cost, but they don't look much more than oversized M203 shells from what I remember. I'm not referring to 'smart' shells, but rather a skilled operator and probably very fine manufacturing tolerances (which allow the repeatability). They were being aimed by kicking the tube a bit to the left, a small shove to the right
You are terribly out of date. I've seen guys hit a target a few hundred meters behind a hill with surprising accuracy. The first mortar misses, every one after that falls dead-on.
How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...
The problem with fighting $500 drones with $100,000 missiles is that your enemy can drain you financially very quickly. This is the same mistake that the IDF has made with the Iron Dome: the thing is so expensive that, barring loss of life, it would cost less to just repair whatever damage the Hamas missiles do rather than to shoot them down.
These things are going to become a major problem. If you have enough of them, you could outfit them with grapeshot and basically saturate an area. If they're cheap enough you could cover a really, really, really large area. Put lots of plastic explosive on them and you could do some serious damage to buildings and depots.
That is what mortars do, an they do it quite a bit cheaper.
Actually, last year Hamas did fly a UAV into Israel. It was shot down by a Tamir missile but it did return video footage back to Hamas.
But this should not be a surprise considering MS Word itself is unable to cope with big
Forget about corrupting large
If you want a document for others to _read_, use PDF. If you want a document for others to _edit_, use whatever they use.
This is exactly the most insightful systemd comment I've seen yet.
Y'know, for all it's flaws, warts, and Dice-y-ness, I think it's a good sign that the clickbait here is stuff about systemd.
Seriously - on other websites they'll drive up pageviews by posting something like "This just in: politicians you disagree with are EVIL!! EEEEEEVIIIIIL!".
What whips up the
Systemd
This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling, a sampling method which chooses samples based on how easy they are to procure. Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?
Wikipedia calls it Accidental Sampling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R.S. Barton
