Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Not real science (Score 1, Insightful) 370

Any theory that has no way to falsified is not science. The level conflict of interest is too damn high with climate "scientists". It's nothing but a bunch of collectivists trying to push their top down authoritarian government down everyone's throat - AS ALWAYS - and this is just another means to that end. Don't believe it? Here's a simple litmus test.

1) Does it actually help the problem in a meaningful way, or does it simply grow the top down authoritarian government?

For each proposed "solution", if the answer to the above question is "yes", and it most certainly is so far, what other conclusion can be reached? The goal of AGW "science" is to grow government, period.

Comment Re:Because we are distracted by "global warming" (Score 1, Insightful) 149

Well, one is a real disaster with actual physical evidence and the other is global warming, a theory that consists of no actual evidence. And no, the temperature records, no matter how much you manipulate them, do not prove anything one way or the other.

But don't believe me, just look at the predictions made two decades ago, or even one decade ago - zero came true. How many will come true next year (zero) and the year after (zero). How many full decades of incorrect predictions is it going to take before people universally mock the AGW congregation? The collectivists that are running this scam are dragging what used to be the trusted name of "science" thru the mud to try and push their collectivist agendas. The price will be that the public no longer trusts science.

Remember that! Zero evidence. Zero correct predictions. They claim they can predict an open thermodynamic system with nearly infinite variables, but meanwhile, in realsville, we know you can't even accurately predict things in a closed thermodynamic system with just a few variables! Every other branch of science LOLs at the methodology (or lack of) used by the AGW guys - especially the statisticians whose discipline they've hijacked and attempted to turn into a propaganda machine. How are those "more hurricanes" working out for you? What? No F4 or F5s since the prediction was made! That's actually statistically significant IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

But we're supposed to change the entire world's way of life - coincidentally into a top down authoritarian state controlled utopia - and we're supposed to believe that that's totally a coincidence. We're supposed to not think that just because that is also the collectivist wet dream that they're just using AGW as a means to an end! I mean, god forbid we consider that people pushing for a global takeover of every country's economy have an agenda. Because people, especially people in power, never have anything but the most genuine altruistic motives. Sure, global warming was in part created by a famous statist politician that has since then enriched the fuck out of himself using it, but I'm sure he had his scientist hat on that day, so it's all good, we need not question his motives - even if he doesn't seem to be terribly concerned with the environment based on his own actions.

Then they defend their theory primarily with the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity" (look at everyone who agrees!!) or "ad hominem" (you're not qualified to talk about this therefore your logic is no good here) and fail to provide any evidence supporting their theory - or indeed even have an actual scientific theory in the first place!

Remember this one thing: If your theory cannot be falsified, it isn't actually a scientific theory.

Comment Re:HLS will win if DASH is patented (Score 1) 66

HLS ... is implemented in every connected device stack ...

I can play HLS content in my Chrome browser you mean? Oh, no it doesn't have HLS support, only widevine. OK, howabout IE... no, not there either, that only supports playready. Ok, firefox! no, not FF without a NPAPI plugin - which will be gone eventually. Safari? Well yeah, sort of. What's left? Opera? and no, not Opera without NPAPI.

So what do you mean by "every connected device stack"?

Comment jQuery is crapware (Score 1) 126

jQuery was relevant as a shim for browser compatibility 10 years ago - and even then only for AJAX. Modern browser's DOM API is far more powerful than what pathetic methods jQuery offers. And what jQuery does offer is often broken, deprecated or just shit code. Want to animate something the way the web animated things in the 90's? Use jQuery. Want to use native animation methods that are orders of magnitude more efficient, more featureful and MUCH easier to use? Use the fucking DOM API that comes with the god damn browser that jQuery is hiding from you. document.querySelector is a thing now! Need to do advanced event handling by manipulating the bubble/capture phase? jQuery can't do that. Are their binding selectors like fucking special or something? No, they just never did that and fuck you if you think you need to change the phase that your event fires at. And don't even get me started on the AJAX bullcrap - undocumented "features", suddenly deprecated properties without any documentation or reason why they changed, properties that make no sense: dataType for content-type? type for method? You do know that HTTP existed and had names for these things before you came along, right? Oh but you added "method" also, so "type" and "method" are the same but "content-type" is "dataType" - SERIOUSLY?! WHAT THE FUCK!? This is what all code would look like if the nazis had won the war. And the author! Riseg writes a book, called something like "advanced javascript techniques" and puts fucking syntax errors in it!! Not to mention it reads like "ah duh, I don't know what JS is, ah duh" Then the second book "secrets of the JS ninja" is actually a really good book, it has his name on it, but it also has someone else's name on it this time. So my guess is it went like this "John, you suck, but your shit is popular, can we have this other guy write a book and put your name on it and give you some money?"

And that's just how jQuery has done me wrong. The real reason I hate it is how it continuously cripples programmers by teaching them idiotic programming patterns that should never have existed in the first place. You don't write a 2000 line application with CHAINING CONSTANTLY. Ever hear of a variable?! Do you think it might be better to use them instead of constantly abusing the queryselector? Do you think CPU cycles are free!? "OH HEY! IT CACHES THO!" Yeah, I'll bet it does it better than the native selector /s - oh wait! It probably executes 1 lines of code "if (document.querySelector) { return document.querySelector(e); }" Woooohhhhh JQUERY MAGIC!!!

I think jQuery should be remembered as the lib that broke the internet. jQuery is the first lib that became so popular that the RFC process was aborted and now Risig makes up some idiotic shit on his own and we call it "standard" because of the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity". Just because a lot of people like it does not make it correct. Actually, given the average skill of web programmers I would say popularity should work against it.

I'm going to spend the next several years of my life trying to undo the damage jQuery has done to the systems that I work with. And the damage is mostly human damage - that is, programmers that can no longer program web because of the things jQuery taught them. And god help the next candidate that comes in for an interview that writes "Languages Known: Java, JavaScript, C#, jQuery". JQUERY ISN'T A FUCKING LANGUAGE! Everything jQuery can do DOM API can do better, easier, with less code and everyone that can read JS can understand it. Learn DOM API - throw jQuery in the trash where it belongs.

Comment Memic? (Score 1) 230

Does any know what the meaning of the word "mimic" is?

imitate (someone or their actions or words), typically in order to entertain or ridicule.

What part of "mimic" necessitates deep knowledge of the inner workings of a system? I can mimic a dolphin (EEEEK EEEK EEEKK QED), but that doesn't mean I have a clue how dolphins work. I was just imitating a dolphin to entertain you. It seems to me that the poster simply doesn't understand what the word "mimic" means.

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 180

1) Russians have a lot of things that can kill an Apache. Tunguska for example. And fixed wing aircraft.

Apparently you don't know what NOE means. Fixed wing aircraft and AAA's cannot engage an heli flying NOE because they cannot pick it up on radar. Because of the radar configuration on the AH-64D it can engage armor while NOE - that is unique to that heli and it was made to counter exactly the threats you listed. Also, AAA and SAMs are loath to turn on their radar because of F16s and F18s flying constant wild weasel missions, so even if they did try and engage it would be like turning on a homing beacon for a HARM missile.

2) Aircraft carriers can be destroyed by supersonic anti ship missiles - something Russians can and do build very well, making the carriers just huge targets. Even the Brits during the cold war were aware of this kind of an asymmetrical answer.

Seriously? Yes, the US has many answers to anti ship missiles. From the phalanx cannon arrays to the AIM120 fired from aircraft screens. Anti ship missiles are not some sort of panacea against aircraft carriers - in fact, thats one of the reasons carriers travel with so many phalanx cannons!. If you really want to know how that might play out, read Tom Clancy - there is more than one engagement with anti ship missiles fired from Russian TUs. It's fiction, but it's hard science using the real stats. Which is a hell of a lot better that pure conjecture. (that's what you're doing btw, pure conjecture)

3) USA does not use stealth aircraft before achieving air superiority anymore because they are too afraid to lose one of the very expensive birds because they aren't that stealthy

Woah, you mean the first stealth aircraft ever, one designed in the 1970s, was shot down? I guess we should scrap the B2, F22 and F35 projects! The F117 has always been a nightmare, I don't even think it's in service anymore. But more to the point, yes the US would use B2s against C&C targets, you're just being foolish if you don't think so. And your logic is flawed too. You're saying the US is afraid of losing its stealth tech - but at the same time you say the stealth tech is worthless - sounds like you have some shit to figure out there.

American army was already overstretched fighting under-equipped savages in two countries, staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war.

In other words, the US has bases that surround Russia that it can launch strikes from? And you're posing that as a disadvantage? Hmmm... Shaky reasoning. And I'm not so sure about the overstretched part. Did the US start the draft and I missed it?

But I can see you have read too much Tom Clancy for your own good.

For my own good? Maybe for your own good. I read some Clancy, and other other publications, like Janes. So yeah, educating myself on the topic has really worked out well. I'm able to articulate my point in detail. How's that whole "lack of meaningful knowledge" working for you? Do you feel like you're able to argue your point succesfully without any actual citations or facts to backup your conjecture?

Comment Re:So? (Score 2) 180

I stand correct, Ukraine isn't part of NATO. That doesn't change anything else. Russia claims over and over again that they are not involved. That is clearly a lie. And I think that is the real issue. Russia is lying about its involvement. In each of the example you gave, did any of the combatants lie about their involvement? No, Russia lies about its involvement because it would be against international law to do what they are doing.

I'm pretty sure about the AH-64s. They can fly NOE and engage with the AH-64D's radar without exposing themselves. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The AH-64D Apache Longbow, is equipped with a glass cockpit and advanced sensors, the most noticeable of which being the AN/APG-78 Longbow millimeter-wave fire-control radar (FCR) target acquisition system and the Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI), housed in a dome located above the main rotor.[249][250] The radome's raised position enables targets detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings). The AN/APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once, an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.[251][252] A radio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to be shared with ground units and other Apaches; allowing them to fire on targets detected by a single helicopter.

They were literally made to fight Russian SAMs and tanks in the eastern european theater. They have (almost) never been used in that role. Read up on the AH-64D's capabilities. Do the Russians have anything that can combat that? I'm not aware of anything. Shoulder launched SA-7 maybe, but not at night and not against helis flying NOE - and that's the only way AH-64s operate prior to achieving air superiority. And I didn't even bring up the F15, F16, F18 or F22.

And what makes you think the USA can't achieve air superiority against the Russians? Is that a joke or something? The US could send just a fraction of the 20 aircraft carriers it has into the black sea and they would have an order of magnitude more resources than the Russians.

The Russians? They have 1 aircraft carrier.

And let's not forget about the stealth aircraft. It would be a shame to lose all of your C&C on day one. But that's pretty much how it goes down in a war with the US. And what does Russia have to counter that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. On day one, all C&C would be gone, any fighting that continued would be commanded by the highest ranking officer on the ground, not from central command. Add air superiority and it effectively makes all Russian armor irrelevant. After a week or two of fighting (working) Russian armor would be a rare sight. The US doesn't even need to send aircraft to attack the armor, they could destroy it with cruise missiles fired from submarines or missile frigates if they wished. And the Russians can do nothing about it.

Oh they could try and field their aging Navy against the US, but with 20 aircraft carriers and dozens of nuclear attack submarines the Russian navy is heavily outmatched.

And don't forget the US army has been fighting wars for a long time. That means we have a lot of skilled veterans - something that the Russians are lacking. So US has more and better skilled men and equipment that was purpose built to destroy the Russian army.

Maybe you can explain how the Russians could stand a chance, because I'm not seeing it.

Read Red Storm Rising. It's about a theoretical engagement of NATO and Warsaw pact countries in the 1980's. And Russia has only declined in military power since then.

Today, Russia would get decimated by the US and might lead to nuclear war, and that more than anything else is why the two countries don't engage in fighting directly.


Comment Re:So? (Score -1, Troll) 180

1) They're not in any way American military. That claim isn't even made. You made it up out of thin air.
2) Ukraine is part of NATO and as a member of NATO the US is obligated by treaty to aid the Ukraine militarily if they are attacked by Russia - that's why Russia refuses to admit they are part of the fighting.
3) The Russians are invading a sovereign nation - this is not a civil war.
4) Even if the people in the video are mercenaries there is nothing astonishing about that. Ukraine can hire mercs to secure their own country against the invading Russian army. It's not like the Ukraine mercs are showing up on the streets of Moscow the way regular Russian army shows up in Ukraine cites.

The Russian government is pure evil, always has been, nothing has changed. If the last two years haven't drove that point home for you then nothing will.

The Russian government is responsible for shooting down a passenger jet and murdering hundreds of people. What about that? Shouldn't Vlad be held to account for war crimes by "supplying" "the rebels" with Russian SAMs that they used to commit mass murder? Even if it was a mistake, shouldn't someone be held to account for what happened?

And what about the annexing of Crimea?

Fucking Russians. Might be time to see how effective our AH-64s really are. (hint: they were made explicitly for that war)

Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!