No, your opinion is being formed from what the diagram is insinuating - that and the actual truth of the matter can be two entirely different things. The diagram is certainly far from clear, changing a few colours on a chart is not a technical explanation.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Nah, that aircraft is eminently re-storable to flight worthy condition - aircraft have been restored to flight status after spending 50 years buried on the Dunkirk beach (see Spitfire MkI N3200, crashed in Dunkirk in 1940, buried in sand, recovered in 1986 and restored to flight in 2014), so a crash like that would be much easier to restore from.
And yet we have had three versions of the GPL, several of the LGPL, and even more of the AGPL. Not to mention the rest of the derivatives...
It just goes to show that the GPL isn't even considered watertight by its creators, just like any other license.
If, and thats a big if, VMWare have done anything in violation of the license at all - the "technical FAQ" is very light indeed on actual technical details, instead mostly talking about how Conservancy went to great lengths to do anything they could to open a dialog before suing. The "technical" part of the FAQ is a single diagram which explains very little in how they think VMWares approach is violating either the GPL or copyright.
This is going to be something to watch, as its going to be an interesting one.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
You realise that that would kill basically any third party country or courts such as the International Court of Justice trying people for genocide, drug cartels etc, right?
Because the companies involved are not in international waters...?
Bigger question - what caused the matter/antimatter imbalance we currently see?
So the lameness filter blocks a load of decent posts, but lets this bullshit through? Come on...
We weren't exactly on good terms with the Soviets at the start of the second world war - remember that the continental royal families still had fresh memories of their Russian relations being massacred despite offers to secure their exile? When we did ally with them during WW2, it was more a case of a deal with the devil than a friendship, and it was acknowledged as such - Churchill even wanted WW2 to continue on against the soviet forces after Germany surrendered but was (thankfully) talked out of that stance.
Sounds good in theory, but get an insurer to underwrite such a scheme - you won't, and for good reason. Kickstarter is a deliberately risky investment (the website promises nothing, the projects promise nothing), and you are voluntarily making the decision to invest in something that guarantees nothing, so no insurer will cover that.
And which of those failures were down to fundamental airframe issues rather than program failures?
The BBC doesn't say that, Professor Harrison says that.
The BBC does say that this year we will have paid off the last outstanding WW1 debt when we refinance the outstanding £1.9Billion balance of the 1932 war bond.
The author of the article you point to, Finlo Rohrer, has also been heavily criticised in the past of biased and misleading articles, so I would take whatever he writes with a pinch of salt...
No, thats a common misconception - the Bf109 had time enough for between 30 minutes and 45 minutes over target, while also escorting their bombers to and from the target. While carrying out bomber escort duties you do not want to loiter, so there was no requirement for a longer loiter time for the Bf109s - as such, it was a very effective aircraft during the Battle of Britain. BTW there was no such thing as the ME 109 - the aircraft didn't carry that designation, its been a long running post war media misconception.
And once again, you are wrong - Germany was still attacking mainland Britain and the convoys in the English Channel right up until Germany was overrun, so there was plenty of defensive roles to be filled by the Spitfire. And of course you ignore that by 1943 the bulk of Spitfire sorties were over occupied France, Belgium and northern Germany in roving attacks and enemy air force suppression. So it wasn't as if we had a pointless load of Spitfires sat around waiting for the Luftwaffe to attack while the USAAF took the fight to the continent...
British bombing policy was, after fairly disastrous attempts early on in the conflict, limited to the night stream approach - a steady stream of bombers attacking a single area target from night fall to dawn. As such, the British had no requirement for a bomber escort aircraft, unlike the USAAF which conducted "precision" daylight bombing and as such needed long range escort fighters to protect the bombers.
Both the Tempest and the Fury were decent aircraft, and the fact that over 1,700 Tempests were built shows that - however it was hampered by low availability of the Napier engines after its introduction in 1944. The Fury didn't even make it into service during WW2, so while it was a nice aircraft, its beyond the scope of discussion.
I'm also not sure that your comparison between "favoured aircraft" and "aircraft left to rot" is valid - the Spitfire performed exceedingly well throughout the war, and was even being produced after the war in certain versions. It is the only aircraft that was in continuous production throughout the war on all sides - even the Bf109 production ended before the war did.
The Meteor was a fair aircraft for its time, and it was in turn fairly quickly replaced in its role by the Hawker Hunter in 1954, so the RAF hardly had an obsession with it. The Nimrod was a damn fine airframe for the duties it was given to - it was the only fully British airframe which could carry out the post war roles it was put in, hence why it was chosen. Neither the Victor nor the Vulcan could fulfil the same role, so no comparison there.
As for those two, well, we used their conventional bombing capabilities once - the Black Buck raids over the Falkland Islands. They weren't used in anger before or after that - and right at that time the Tornado was being delivered, along with the capability of laser guided bombs, so we no longer had the need for a heavy bomber, and both the Victor and Vulcan were expensive to operate as tankers, so they were simply removed from service altogether when the time came (the Victor struggled on until we had enough L1011s and VC-10s converted, but once they were delivered the Victor was dropped like the proverbial hot potato).
Actually France and the UK both had a better Army and Air Force than Germany in 1938. They were in even better position than in 1936 when the allowed Germany to re occupy the Rhineland.
I disagree with both of those assertions - the Luftwaffe already had 2,100 Bf109 aircraft delivered pre-1939, while the RAF had a grand total of 500 Hurricanes (which were already outclassed by the Bf109) and no Supermarine Spitfires until mid-1938.
The Luftwaffe were also combat experienced through their involvement in the Spanish Civil War etc, while RAF pilots were not.
Also, the UK did repay our WW1 loans - they were paid back by the proceeds of a War Bond issued by Neville Chamberlain in 1932 (which the current government is refinancing this month).
Complete bollocks Im afraid - the Hurricane was a good, stable gun platform but it lacked the speed, rate of climb and agility of either the Spitfire MkI or MkII or the Bf109 during the Battle of Britain - the reason the Hurricane achieved higher kill numbers than the Spitfires was because Hurricane squadrons were tasked with bomber interception, while the Spitfire squadrons were tasked with ensuring the accompanying Bf109 fighter escort was kept off the Hurricanes.
The Hurricane had no developmental capacity in the airframe, by the time of the Battle of Britain it was pretty much done as an airframe - once the later marks of Bf109 and the Fw190 were introduced by the Luftwaffe, the Hurricane was horrifically outclassed and relegated to other duties (most either shipped out to Africa or the far east, where they were still a match for early Japanese fighters or could carry out convoy escort duties - you also saw Hurricanes used as catapult launched convoy protection aircraft, because they were considered disposable).
The Spitfire, on the other hand, was developed into the MkV as a stop gap measure, and then into the MkIX as a full Fw190 competitor which more than held its own. The Spitfire was then further developed into later marks, including a full engine change with the switch from the Merlin to the Griffon engine.
The Spitfire didn't have the legs of later aircraft because it was designed as a home country defence fighter - in its later guises it certainly spent time over occupied France and Germany from home bases in the UK (hence the camo cahnge from green and brown to green and grey - that was purely for aircraft intended to fly over occupied europe), but it was never designed as a long range bomber escort, which is why the RAF asked for the North American P-51 Mustang to be developed (yup, would never have been built if the RAF hadn't asked for it - the USAAF wasn't interested until it received several demonstrator examples from the RAF production line).