The Phantom has the distinction of being the last U.S. Beginning in 1959, it set 15 world records for in-flight performance, including an absolute speed record, and an absolute altitude record.ĭuring the Vietnam War, the F-4 was used extensively it served as the principal air superiority fighter for both the Navy and Air Force, and became important in the ground-attack and aerial reconnaissance roles late in the war.
Later models incorporated an M61 Vulcan rotary cannon. The F-4, like other interceptors of its time, was designed without an internal cannon. It can carry more than 18,000 pounds (8,400 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints, including air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles, and various bombs. The Phantom is a large fighter with a top speed of over Mach 2.2. Air Force, and by the mid-1960s had become a major part of their respective air wings. Proving highly adaptable, it was also adopted by the U.S. It first entered service in 1960 with the U.S. So far, the filtering debate has been stoked by justifiable outrage, and desperately short of real-world data therefore, one would hope that other ISPs implementing filtering will share the results so that we can collectively judge whether a moderate level of filtering is a good idea after all - or just an irrevocable step towards the authoritarian state that so many have feared.The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is a tandem two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor aircraft/fighter-bomber originally developed for the United States Navy by McDonnell Aircraft. Good policy is never born of extremism, but of cold, hard facts and solutions to improve them. If you accept censorship of the worst-of-the-worst as a good thing, and accept also that the nature of that censorship is as even-handed as you're going to get in today's world, then perhaps you will accept that the type of voluntary filtering being undertaken should be adopted by other ISPs as well. ISPs like Exetel, TPG and Internode have already indicated that they'll implement filtering when they have to - but, for now, they have other priorities.Īustralia isn't going to stop the world's child porn scourge single-handedly, but a filtering policy done right - and transparently - may ultimately turn out to be an acceptable compromise between Labor's central filter pie in the sky, and the every-man-for-himself libertarianism of the anti-filter brigade. Yet, I suspect a third dynamic is in play here: ISPs are looking for solid footing in a rapidly changing legal landscape that extends far beyond child porn, and they don't want to load the decision-making process with new talking points before they get some certainty in areas such as data retention and copyright enforcement. Say it was revealed that the three ISPs saw over 150,000 requests for child porn materials in three months - the equivalent of 1667 requests per day, or more than one per minute, just by customers of those three ISPs - a case could certainly be made that broader filtering is perhaps not as crazy as opponents initially feared. There's also the possibility that they are collecting the data, but don't want to publicise it out of fear of giving either side of the filtering debate ammunition with which to argue their positions. Yet this would seem to be absurd, not the least because any ISP, and any filtering platform worth its salt, would have no trouble generating logs to track exactly these kinds of statistics. So why haven't Optus and CyberOne followed Telstra's lead by sharing their filtering numbers? And would other ISPs share theirs? There are several possibilities.įirst, of course, is the chance that Optus and CyberOne, Telstra's fellow voluntary filterers, actually aren't collecting statistics on utilisation of their filters.
0 kommentar(er)
