On 1/11/2011 12:57 PM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
Dan wrote:

On 1/11/2011 12:24 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article
,

wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:59 pm, "Keith
wrote:

On of the problems when dealing with a socity like China
is that its hard to know when they have produced a
prototype. They tend to look less tolerantly on plane
spotters than western natons.


Keith, this ignorant civilian would like to know if it is
possible for
the Chinese
to have a good understanding of what is needed to develop this
aircraft fully
as a result of stealing the information (i.e., hacking military
computers)?

Cheers . . . J.


They have some very good engineers who could come up with some
real
innovations.

That said, if they depend on stolen information, it would be
very easy
to plant deliberate misinformation in places they can hack
(with some
effort). That is the flaw in stealind information.


Let them steal a chip design with a built in flaw such that it
can be remotely commanded to cause major system failure.
Essentially one could get the Red Chinese to construct an
airplane with a built in bomb.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Reverse engineering. Ever heard of it?
;-)

Yah, ask Toyota, Nissan and Honda how well that went when they
stole Chrysler blind on the throttle. It made Chrysler have to
recall a couple of hundred thousand cars just to make sure that
their system was good. It was.

Toyota and other Japanese companies bought the same equipment
from the same suppliers. The problem was, the control unit was
stupid and they had to reverse engineer the coding. They blew
it. In the Chrysler, there is a build in system where if
something goes wrong with the controller it disengages the
throttle. And if you tap the brake, it disengages the throttle.
Guess what, they left out those last two items and them lied to
the public and Congress about it. Yes, let them reverse engineer
that way there is more likelihood that they will screw the pooch.