Turning the transponder off only prevents civilian ATC from knowing your identification and altitude. They will still see your position as a primary target on their radar.
Military aircraft mostly do not have civilian VHF radio, only military UHF radio. They can only communicate with civilian aircraft by using civilian ATC as a go-between, and only if the civilian ATC is equipped with military UHF radio. In the US, this military equipment is standard at civilian ATC sites for this reason.
Why don't they have at least a receive-only radio? I can understand if they're averse to someone keying up and accidentally broadcasting Secret Military Stuff on the civilian frequency, but a an air-band capable VHF receiver is less than $100 as a consumer buying single units. Surely the MIC could find a way to add one for just $10k as cheap insurance against losing a $5 million plane in a tragic and avoidable accident?
For example, "Mom, there's a candy wrapper under (my brother)'s bed!" is a true statement, but the pure truth is "Mom, I ate a candy without permission and put the wrapper under (my brother)'s bed so he would be blamed for the missing candy!"
I am attempting to convey a lie by telling a truth and omitting details that would give context to that truth.
I believe you are referring to "whole truths," which yes we teach to children and swear on the stand in court. A "pure" truth carries different connotation here I think, and is not said in general.
Since GP might not have English as their first language (their post points out that they are European) I assumed the choice of "pure" was a translation of their language's equivalent to "whole" and therefore being treated as equivalent.
In some older IBM-built processors (channel controllers, the various iterations of the CSP), an xor of something against itself also had the effect of safely clearing a stored bad parity without triggering a parity check from reading the operand. You would see strategic clearing in this manner done by system software or firmware during error recovery or early initialization.
That's the old and broke GOP. The new GOP understands that the Constitution has been fatally corrupted by woke and liberalism, and our only hope is to crown a King who speaks the Truth of all things for all of time. When nobody can say we are losing, we must be winning.
I wish. Until the Republican Congress stands up and asserts their constitutional authority instead of taking marching orders, this is not that far off from what we have now.
Actually better idea - I'll call it Schrödinger's Sarcasm. Whether or not it's sarcasm depends on whether or not my political reliability is being investigated by the secret police.
That's not how this works. If you cannot prove conclusively that something is not the case ever, then you must accept that somewhere in the infinity of possibility it is.
That was only true in very early systems. By the time of the PDP-10, HACTRN will nag you to log in if you run most commands and the gunner would kill off your job after a relatively short interval (the exact interval differed from machine to machine).
The passwords were only if you were connecting over the network. If you were using a directly attached terminal, you didn't need one.
RMS insisted that everyone use their UNAME as their password, but he wasn't widely listened to because the whole reason PWORD came into effect was because turists were getting increasingly destructive. People weren't happy when their mail got marked read (or worse, deleted) because some random from the network had logged in as them simply because they could and did not understand what their automatic login script was doing.
ITS had no file permissions, but even before PWORD was installed to keep randoms from the network away there were means of keeping the turists out when the system was to be reserved for Real Work. Other parts of the system that were considered sensitive were hidden behind undocumented commands or program-level passwords - For example, the innards of INQUIR, since the INQUIR database determined who was to be excluded and who was not.
There may have been no file permissions, but there was a definite hierarchy of users that was enforced by other (generally more subtle) means.
reply