Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment It's even funnier (Score 1) 288

When retards make a comment like that on a public site, hosted in the US, viewed primarily by US citizens. You would think they could see the inherently contradictory nature of such a thing but no, they are convinced somehow that the US government clamps down on information like a repressive regime, yet somehow managed to miss this, and the millions of other, sites hosted in its borders.

Comment Re:Now we're getting somewhere (Score 1) 128

They can be a great option for folks who only occasionally travel long distances, because 98% of the time, you're not dragging the extra weight of an ICE around, and you're (ostensibly) using clean energy to power your car, and you only use gasoline when you're traveling too far for electric cars to otherwise be practical. For people who drive long distances regularly, obviously a hybrid or even a traditional automobile would be a better choice (less pollution, better emissions controls, and better fuel economy in all likelihood).

Comment Re:FFS just keep the Warthog (Score 1) 279

Well, the US (unlike the Reich) pretty much has to go high-tech with its army, simply because high losses would quickly mean that support for any kind of war would decline sharply.

Only for wars that never had any popular support in the first place.

And America can't afford to lose its high-tech aircraft, because they're so expensive.

Comment Re:stealth (Score 1) 279

Incidentally, that's the same warload as a F-117, and no one ever complained that it didn't carry enough bombs.

That's because they had real bombers to do the grunt work. They'd sure have been complaining if the F-117 was the only bomber they had.

The F-35's stealth is only useful in a ground-attack role in a few tiny corner cases--which country, exactly, do you think it's going to be bombing which has good enough air defence for the stealth to make a difference, but not good enough that it makes no difference?--and, for that, you pay several times the cost of an aircraft that's just as capable the rest of the time. And, given the cost of losing one, odds are they'll just stay back out of range and launch missiles, the same way a cheaper aircraft would.

Comment Re:Is the premise serious? (Score 0) 279

Duh. You don't have to worry about 'air supremacy' when fighting third-world peasants, because they don't have any planes. What you do have to worry about are anti-aircraft guns and missiles, which are vastly cheaper than F-35s.

Sending a $337,000,000 (according to the 'War Nerd' post linked above) fighter to blow up Toyotas full of peasants is like using a 30mm gatling gun to hunt ducks. It's all very exciting, and fun if you can afford it, but not very sensible.

Comment Re:stealth (Score 2) 279

Those "sensor pods" are shaped like external fuel tanks. They've got that rounded and curved shape, to make them aerodynamic. Which is horrible for stealth. The F35 has to pack all its baggage inside the fuselage, with minimal openings.

You do realize the F-35 has to carry most if its weapons on highly non-stealthy wing pylons for air-to-ground attacks, right? If I remember correctly, it can only carry two bombs or four air-to-air missiles internally, everything else has to go under the wings... including the external fuel tanks required for a long bombing mission.

Comment Re:Fail. Profit! (Score 1) 279

Actually, if that were the case, the predecessors wouldn't be as capable.

The predecessors actually have to do something in the real world, like bombing third-world peasants, while the F-35 sits in a hangar. Besides, who's really going to risk a $200,000,000 jet to blow up a $10,000 pickup with a couple of guys with RPGs in the back?

Comment Re:5% less leg room? (Score 1) 65

Because everyone in Europe has a high-speed rail station outside their house from where they can take a train all the way to their destination by the direct route without stopping anywhere in between.

You're right that flying makes little sense on short routes, due to the time taken to get on and off the plane. But high-speed rail makes little sense on those routes, either. When I lived in the UK, even the relatively slow 220-ish km/h inter-city trains used to spend about the first half hour crawling out of London before they could get up to speed, then, after a few minutes at that speed, they'd be crawling in and out of the stations where they stopped along the way.

Comment Ahh ok (Score 2) 336

Well since you are clearly a network security expert, please tell us how to secure a network against being taken out be a DDoS attack. Then post your IP, we'll see how you fair. Remember, you are the asshole and deserve Legal Penalties with Scary Caps if you can't stop it.

Here's a hint: There is no security against a DDoS attack. That's why assholes like Lizard Squad use them.

Comment Ya pretty much (Score 2) 552

If the idea is to import the best of the best, well then the pay needs to be for that. You can't say you are after the best anything and then offer even average wages. The best can command high pay.

Now if that's not the idea, that's fair too, but stop trying to bullshit us about it. None of this "We only want the best but we want to bay substandard wages!" crap.

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...