Well, you have to factor in the Iranian cultural mania for disagreeing with each other. The Shah couldn't keep them under his thumb, neither can the mullahs, who have their hands full disagreeing with each other.

From a tyrant's perspective Iran is ungovernable, which doesn't mean elements in the government don't give tyranny a go on a regular basis. It's an ideal setup for producing martyrs. The futility of cracking down means you have a little space to rake some muck before official anger overcomes reason.

Doing some some PCI compliance certification stuff and a scan shows that the site is not compliant, the reason being that TLSv1 is supported. Turning TLSv1 off kills off support for a number of older browsers, all types of browsers.....

(nginx)

    server {
        ssl on;
        #ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2;
        ssl_protocols TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2; .....
        }
    }

Now I am trying to figure out what to do about this problem, how to detect the clients that do not support TLSv1 and to redirect them to a simple html page instead of the clients pretty much receiving 'connection reset by server' error.

No dice so far, but I thought this was only supposed to happen a year from now (June 2016, not 2015), oh well.

Well, alright, lets take close air support in Afghanistan. What would have been the cheaper, easier-to-maintain solution with better time on station?

I distinctly remember it being promised that the F-35 would beat anything but an F-22 in air-to-air combat, at a fraction of the price. It was not part of the original concept for the system but it was definitely sold politically as being capable of acting as a poor man's F22.

I wonder about the helmet mounted display, whether that's something you'd consider absolutely necessary in an aircraft whose job is to hit surface targets in contested airspace.

To be fair, that was not the original justification for the thing. That was mission creep.

I think the original impetus was to have something stealthy that could do ground strikes in enemy territory. And it makes sense to do a naval version of the same thing. If they'd just focused on that they'd have been done a long time ago with a solid design, which of course in engineering nearly always turns out to be more versatile than you planned for. Adding STOVL and the whizbang helmet (cool as that may be) as necessary elements of the system turned this into an "everything for everyone" project, which almost always turns out less versatile than you hoped.

Sure you can identify scenarios where the A-10 is useless. But in the last twenty years it's been extremely useful in a number scenarios we've actually faced.

The idea that a system ought to play every role in every conceivable situation is why the F35 performs none of them very well. In hindsight the idea of accommodating the Marines' need for a STOVL aircraft in the same basic design probably dictated too many compromises in the plane's other roles.

It still wouldn't matter. The other authors can license any way they want as long as it is compatible with your license. In the case of the GPL they can release their software as later version and still push back to your project under your version. You can take your code and release it proprietary and gpl at the same time because it's your code.

My position on copyrights and patents was always the same: abolish all patents and copyrights and prevent government from providing monopolies with these laws.

Basically this is nearly the ultimate absurd result that we are seeing here and it probably can even get worse. You want to build a road somewhere? Well, you are violating a copyright on other people building horizontal surfaces to allow circular wheels (and legs I suppose) to run on them. You want to build a house? Are you going to have a roof? Foundation? Walls? Windows? Doors? Fucking copyright violator. Absurd, isn't it? Or is it really absurd to expect that ruling like that can actually be passed given the fact that it is a government entity that can pass that ruling and given that governments are already given authority to rule on these issues?

No, the real solution is not even about money exchanging hands (though I wouldn't be surprised in case of Oracle), it is about the power that governments have over our heads, and this power is as insane as it is absurd.

No company or person should be given government protected monopoly on anything, including any invention, copyright, whatever. That's not how evolution works, that's not how cultures worked and still keep working. That type of power is destructive, not constructive in any way. Let the people and companies decide how to provide their services and products in a world that does not automatically protect them from any type of competition. At the very least this cannot be a power granted to government, deal with these issues on contract basis and using trade secrets if you must.

Anyway, I can only leave 1 or 2 comments here now given that 24 hours passed since my account's 'karma' was obliterated again by moderators who want to make sure I cannot reply to comments made to me, so don't expect many comments here either.

You mean in the same way that a manufacturer of a spoon "illegally copied" information about a human mouth?

In the same way that a road construction crew "illegally copied" information about wheels being round?

In the same way that a manufacturer of a catheter "illegally copied" information about urethra?

This is API, API is information about CONNECTING pieces together, it is a contract information, definition of connectivity, not implementation details.

This is not a problem that is just related to Java somehow either, this concerns everything, every language, nearly every field and industry.

1. Who says 'my business' is causing a disturbance? Do you generally know which hotel somebody stays in if they are running around drunk on the street?

2. I don't believe for a moment that there is an actual problem of that type, most people sleep at night and I am almost completely sure this entire fucking article is a gigantic exaggeration like pretty much everything else that pops into the media.

3. Hotels being in so called 'commercial districts' does not change the hotel customers being drunk 1 block away from the hotel, beside which hotels are mostly located near private housing anyway, not in factory or warehouse zones.

4. By my standards there is no question at all, I am completely against all government involvement into any business and money, so no, by my standards this is a cut and dry case of government oppression. You are the one full of shit, hotels are located near other houses and buildings all the time and their clients can get drunk and noisy anywhere at all, be it a city or a beach or transit or whatever.

They have had kits that do not require a 3d printer for that for a long time now. There are a few different companies offering it. Here are a couple that I know of.

http://www.willykit.com/

http://www.createamate.com/

And I there there is a clone a willy kit somewhere but cannot remember the URL for it. All of these options are much cheaper than a 3d printer and you can put vibrators in them as well as glow in the dark colors and even lights. Lots of fun- just don't make a bunch of them and hand them out in the secret Santa at work next year. Trust me, it's not as fun or funny as you might think.

I saw that number written on the bathroom wall at the club I was at last night. You must get around.

Anyhow, I do not know if the FCC has an 800 number to call and check for flight restrictions. They should. I kind of assumed they did, actually.

If they do, I don't know about it.

Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.

As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.

Even still, do you think it prudent to fly your UAV over a forest fire and add the mayhem?

I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.

here is no such thing as, well they are already at risk and the additional risk is trivial.

I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.

As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Can you imagine the electronics that could fit into one of these..

Yes, the old testament where the bible says do something this way which is repeated in the new testament where the same occurs. The bible recognizes outsiders and unfaithful so the fact of it happening outside of religious demands is meaningless when checking to see if the bible allows polygamous marriages. It says to have one man and one women and the two become one.

That defeats the comment that if someone reads a bible, polygamous marriage would have been legal from the beginning. It clearly instructs the Jews and Christians to not participate in it and that it is wrong to do. The fact that it happened is a bit like ignoring what it says.