Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Why now? (Score 1) 44

Assuming that the Chinese DID do it. For which we have the unsupported word of the US government, whose unbelievable incompetence and/or negligence allowed the theft to take place. What better - indeed, what more irresistible knee-jerk - reaction than to blame the horrid foreigners?

Comment Re:Not far enough. (Score 1) 44

"Sanction them. Exclude them from the world market".

Assuming much? We have already seen how sanctions on Russia have stimulated its economy while seriously damaging Europe's. I seriously wonder which of those (or both) the US government finds more rewarding.

The important question, however, is why the US government thinks that it can "exclude" other countries "from the world market". Given that the USA has less than 5 percent of the world's population, and has been spectacularly successful in lining up dozens of other nations against its policies - including several of the world's largest. They started by placing sanctions on Russia (see the link below). Now they want to sanction China. Maybe India and Brazil might follow - four out of the five BRICS nations. But at some point, when less than 5 percent of the world's population starts sanctioning and excluding others, one wonders just who is excluding and who is being excluded. Or maybe someone is contriving to exclude themselves?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Comment Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score 1) 427

"You are confusing the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 JSF".

Easily done. Not everyone has completed the Advanced Turkey Discrimination Course.

"The F-22 has recently been deployed to Europe because of the russian attack on the Ukraine".

There has been no "Russian attack on the Ukraine". Two important things happened last year:

1. After the illegal coup d'etat in Kiev, in which the elected President was chased out of the country in fear of his life, the junta of oligarchs that illegally assumed power revealed its murderous hostility to the Russian population of the East and South. The inhabitants of Crimea held a referendum (approved by all the usual international monitoring bodies) which resulted in a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout. Crimea then asked Russia to accept it back as a part of Russia (as it was from 1783 to 1991) and Russia agreed.

2. The Kiev junta then sent its armed forces to conquer the Donbas area (Donetsk and Lugansk). The local inhabitants fought back, first of all with weapons seized from armouries and then with increasing quantities of heavy weapons captured from the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). ("Please send us more armoured columns. The last ones were delicious!") The UAF and numerous neo-Nazi and other Fascist units helping them shelled, bombed and rocketed civilian areas including schools, hospitals, homes and places of work; but they were unable to capture territory and, indeed, lost many troops and much equipment. To date over 1 million civilian refugees have fled to Russia - which they would hardly have done if Russia had been the aggressor.

If Russia had attacked Ukraine it would have conquered it in about 48 hours.

Comment Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score 1) 427

"Smart bombs turned bomb dropping into a precision weapon that had pinpoint accuracy".

Hahahahahaha... advocates of bombing have been saying that kind of thing since the WW2 Norden bomb sight. That was supposed to attain an accuracy of about 20 metres... but under real conditions, many bombs fell miles away from their targets.

The introduction of clever electronics has admittedly allowed "pinpoint accuracy" - meaning that you hit exactly what you aim at. Now all that remains is to make sure you aim at the right target - rather than, say, the Chinese embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Comment Re:Am I missing something here? (Score 1) 119

"Why is the BBC (a corporation with a royal charter) paying the Met Office (a government entity) for weather forecasting?"

Because political correctness requires everything to be paid for. If neoliberals had their way, children would have to pay their parents for board and lodging.

Comment Re:This could counterproductive (Score 1) 119

"All forecasters get it wrong sometimes. It's an art as much as it's a science".

Well, the BBC (which uses Met Office data) gets it wrongly consistently, week after week. And if it's an art as much as a science, it must be the only art that requires the use of £97 million supercomputers.

Comment Re:And only 50p a day... (Score 2) 119

"However the public don't want that, so instead they are killing the BBC with cuts".

Mayhap. If so, there's a long way to go. Last time I heard - a few years ago - I was aghast to hear that the BBC had some 40 "executives" who were paid more than the Prime Minister. While that's not a huge amount in business terms, it's ridiculously excessive for a broadcaster. Especially since the BBC's actual work would probably go ahead much more quickly and smoothly without those executives, who do little except hold meetings, issue policy documents, and interfere with people who are doing a pretty good job.

Comment Re:Tender (Score 2) 119

Forecasting the exact weather for specific parts of the UK must be very challenging. Look, a bunch of rain-bearing cloud is coming in from the south-west (almost always the case). But how fast will the wind carry it? When will it actually dump some rain? Will it go straight over Town X, or dodge sideways and miss it by 10 miles?

That said, I have been appalled for many years by the BBC/Met Office forecasts. I try to walk every morning, but I won't usually go out if it is already raining or about to start. Many is the time "white cloud" turned out to be "white cloud with steady rain underneath". On occasion I have looked at the BBC forecast for my town RIGHT NOW and seen "heavy rain", while outside the window the sun was shining in a cloudless sky. (Or vice versa, which of course tends to be wetting).

Whatever the technical challenges, I have to ask how much credence to put in forecasts a week, a month, or a year ahead when they can't even forecast the weather RIGHT NOW?

Comment Re:This kind of stuff is Exhibit #1 (Score 1) 282

"I don't know if that's driven by government or quasi-government led efforts, or simply driven by economic realities of the news business".

Aha! That's the really cool thing about the current setup. The economic realities of the news business dictate that media should do nothing but parrot the government line (and occasionally accept payment for printing entire articles wholly written by the CIA). That's what pays. Doing anything else really, really, REALLY doesn't pay. (Plus some people might end up dead, or worse - who knows?)

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...