Um...

I typically don't respond to AC's, but someone may read this and actually decide you know what you're talking about. Apache pilots do NOT use image intensifier night vision devices. They use the TADS (Target Acquisition and Designation System) and PNVS (Pilot's Night Vision System), which are both mounted in turrets in the front of the aircraft. These turrets contain true IR sensors, which display the image in a mini-Heads Up Display known as the monocle, which clips to the right side of the pilot's/CPG's helmet.

Other helicopters in the army's inventory use image intensification, but the Apache doesn't (NB: I'm not sure about the Super Cobras, but IIRC, those are all used by the USMC at this point).

Actually, if you look at a tank in thermals, the hottest thing you're gonna see is the roadwheels. The engine isn't nearly as hot. Those roadwheels get a metric buttload of friction from the tracks (which is the main reason that tank tracks have such a limited life expectancy: you'll get something like 5-10 TIMES the wear out of your car tires than an M1 does with its tracks).

However, tankers prefer to operate head-on with their enemy. All of the armor on a tank is thickest/most protective on the head-on aspect. And, with that aspect, cloaking the heat wouldn't be that bad a problem (and yes, I know the TFA showed it on a Challenger's skirts).

FYI: there ain't no such animal. The searchlight that you were seeing on the M60 was IR based, and was used by the light-amplification night vision sight used then. As an aside, the M60A3 was far enough behind the times that it had to use "frog eyes" to get the range to an enemy tank before shooting: the "frog eyes" were visible immediately above the smoke grenade launchers on the turret of the second picture on the first page of the link you sent. They actually had to use trig and parallax to determine the range before the M1 brought out the laser range finder (the M60A5 incorporated the laser range finder as well as a few of the other goodies that came out on the M1).

The first flight M1 included a true thermal night vision system for the gunner, which allowed them to shoot at night without lighting off a big "Shoot Me, Please" sign on top of the tank. The driver and loader both had light amplification viewers that could be swapped into one of the periscope mounts at night. These LA viewers worked on ambient light only (they came with IR filters for the tanks' headlights, but I think we only used 'em once or twice).

I changed my MOS from 19K to 67R before we got M1A1's (much less M1A2's, if that tells you how old I am), but IIRC, the M1A2 has a second thermal viewer that allows the TC (tank/track commander) to operate independently of the GPS, allowing hunter/killer ops between the TC and gunner. There were rumors that they were going to include true thermal systems for the driver and loader, too, but I don't personally know if that came to pass.

Sorry: forgot to log in and posted this anonymously a few minutes ago.

And I've been reasonably happy with it. As you can probably guess, all of these bags are compromises. You can carry your laptop, and your DSLR, but you aren't going to carry much more. I've got my Canon 350D (with my "go-to" lens, the standard Canon 27-135 IS lens) mounted on it in the top spot in the camera area, then another 5 lenses (ranging from a Sigma 75-300 to a Canon 50 mm prime), along with a Sigma shoe flash stashed in camera area. I still have enough room for my 17" MacBook Pro and power adapter (the laptop has a dedicated, zippered pouch that fits like it was made for it). That's ALL you have room for, though.

You won't have room for much more than a thin paperback (I had JUST enough room to stick my Nook in the front pocket where the wall wart/mouse/extra stuff goes).

So the verdict: it does what you need it to do, and does it well (it even has a pretty nice system for carrying a tripod along). Just don't expect to carry much more than the camera and laptop.

I can tell you that, until 1993 (at least), TADS video was not encrypted.

I got out in 1993 as a 67R, and cannot speak for what they did to the video recorders in the Apache after that (particularly in the Longbow upgrade, which was just a wet dream in Boeing's eye when I left).

are true. We'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which.

He just has to ask himself whether or not he feels lucky. I work with ePHI every day, and would NOT want to be the first person targeted with prosecution over that. Remember, HIPAA is a criminal statue, not just civil. Lawsuits would be the least of your worries if you ended out disclosing patient information.

Which is why a lot of pros (and even this amateur) turn as much of that off as they can stand. Particularly when doing portraiture or landscape work (where you have a mostly stationary subject and camera). Which is also why I prefer the Canon DSLR habit of NOT putting Image Stabilization in the body itself.

For me, when I can take a picture at ISO 6400 equivalent with no noise, I'll be a happy guy. I'll no longer have to worry about saving up another $500-$600 for an f2 75 mm prime just to have something I can use in a museum.

Well, it doesn't have to be accessible from the absolute latest and greatest system. However, we're talking about a DBMS old enough that it is still hierarchal instead of relational. None of the common commercial tools available for other relational systems really work with the VA's system. Then, it makes it very difficult to get qualified people to work on (and audit) your systems when they're so old that all the experts are pretty much homegrown.

That assumption isn't made. They keep a pretty close eye on outbound traffic as well. But your point is well made. :)

Please someone mod this insightful, intelligent or otherwise freakin' brilliant! There have been discussions of the VA's medical database in the not-too-distant past on Slashdot (too lazy to try to track the links down right now), and they've (rightly) concentrated on the antiquity of the current database management system.

And, in my opinion, oversight is the problem. If you have enough oversight to keep a$$hats from taking advantage of the system, it becomes virtually impossible to get anything done. Then, you have the inertia of having 20 years worth of medical data that has to at least be accessible from the new system (even if it isn't migrated). If you decrease oversight enough that the system can be responsive, the next thing you know is that everyone starts bring in their brothers/sisters/parents and making them contractors.

Although, to be fair, system stability is another big problem. When my health is riding on the health of the medical records system in a particular hospital, I want the system to be more stable than I am.

Well, all of our systems are set up to store patient info only in the remote database: none of the systems store patient info locally. However, we distinctly do NOT use Google. I'm firmly in favor of Google as a search engine, but the concept of storing medical info and data in something like Google Docs just leaves me cold and clammy.