Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Return, Reload, Repeat as necessary. (Score 1) 815 815

Presumably when you are very far away and invisible to the enemy, you fly back to where ever you came from, reload, and repeat until the enemy has no planes left. I think this is generally the idea behind the whole F-35 concept.

The other idea (which is why it is so expensive) is in a supposed cost saving measure (lol!) in that rather than design, build, and support multiple airframes designed to do different things, you only make one that does them all. The draw back being that doing them all really well (like dogfighting) is a bit unrealistic. Compounding the issue is functionality creep, where you had various stakeholders (different branches of the armed forces) start adding additional requirements making designing variants anyway such as the vertical takeoff model, which further exacerbates an already blown budget.

Anyway the enemy counter to this, is to build sufficiently good planes, that are very cheap, so that in such an encounter, you just throw pilots at the F-35 until they run out of firepower, then continue advancing to targets while they are rearming. The two things going against this is the ratio of cheap plans to available F-35 and number of armaments they might carry, and also the moral of your pilots flying the planes. Pilots are pretty autonomous insofar as soldiers go, as seen in the gulf war, sufficiently moraless pilots would just fly over and defect rather than just get blown out of the sky. The famous instances of this were the Russians in WWII throwing soldiers into the meat grinder, then having moral officers waiting behind them should they decide to retreat... Can't see that working with air warfare, and even if it did, then you have to have some moral planes trailing the possible defectors... Then again you could build in remote detonators, however at that point having superior electronic warfare (which the US and F-35 likely does), you could possible win any engagement from afar with a single button press...

Comment: First Adopters... (Score 1) 302 302

I think the real question is, for those of us debating the free upgrade, most of us with Windows 7, how long do you wait?

I guess it must depend on how much of a disaster the initial launch is...

From my own perspective it will be: How many drivers will be broken? What software will not be supported?

All I know for sure is that WMC will be gone, and I will have to find a replacement for it. Though it has been kinda half broken for awhile now (unsupported codecs etc...).

Comment: Not the point (Score 1) 138 138

They are showcasing their GPU. I've had better experiences with ATI/AMD GPU over nVIDIA.

I'd buy a AMD GPU over an Intel one any day.

But yes, until AMD makes something significantly better, I'll buy an Intel CPU. My current system is Intel CPU, AMD GPU. The system I built before that was an Intel CPU, and ATI GPU, which is pretty much the same thing. Were I to build one tomorrow, probably also.

At least this shows that AMD doesn't have their own head stuck up their ass to know that their customers regularly pair their AMD GPU's with Intel CPU's...

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 138 138

Yes. AMD had a brief window of a few years of total dominance. I recall the Athlon64 (AthlonXP?) crushed the Intel counterparts. They were faster, cooler, and better supported. Then Intel ditched the P4 and went to Core 2 Duo's and the rest is history.

I am kind of shocked however on the decision. Usually corporate types like to stick head in the sand and make believe hard enough until the get their bonuses. I wonder how far up the chain this decision went, and if not far enough if heads will roll. If this was a purposeful corporate decision, perhaps there is hope yet for AMD...

Comment: Marriage Reform (Score 1) 1082 1082

I know you're joking, however the decision does bring up some questions about marriage, what it is, and why government is involved with it at all. So far as I can tell the only reason government is involved at all, is because marriage does a number of things for you financially and your rights. First you get a bunch of income tax breaks, and second, some rights in court in terms of finance and possessions. Presumably these laws exist for pretty much two reasons, 1) To promote and to help families who would theoretically have kids, and 2) to "protect" the spouse that decides to be the primary person to raise those kids, who really may not make much external money.

Which is the first problem, is that even a traditional marriage, the couple may not want kids, or are unable to have any. Why are they afforded the same benefits as everyone else? Why do non-married people not get the same benefits?

Anyway congrats to all the folks who can now get legally married in the US. However getting the tax advantage is a bit balanced by the protection piece. When marriage works, the people are all very rosie about it, however I'm pretty sure just about every single divorced friend has said, never ever get married, just don't do it! So I guess some more people have some decisions to make, hopefully they make some right ones. Somehow with all the celebration about this decision, I can somehow see a lot of couples getting married that maybe shouldn't, and then a rash of court cases and divorce proceedings in a few years... we'll see how much they think of marriage then.

Comment: Water Vapor (Score 1) 136 136

So here is an idea... no idea of effectiveness, though that could be tested in a lab. Implementation like any terraforming or atmosphere creation scheme is all pretty fantastical. Anyway I know from reading various sources that water, specifically tanks of water can be used as effective shielding against radiation. What if when they are designing what the atmosphere is to be consisted of, they attempt to make it at certain levels pretty soupy with suspended water vapor. A couple km thickness of the stuff might block enough radiation. Of course that will likely make the surface pretty dark, making plant life difficult. Though likely a lot of rainfall, which would be good. Though it would be a pretty bleak dank dark soggy world, much like England.

Comment: That was my initial reaction (Score 0) 815 815

However on further thought, Google Inc can also make the decision to not support it. If customers don't like it they can go someplace else.

Google is a corporate entity, they can't outlaw anything, but they can choose to not to support it. You don't have to use Google, Companies don't have to sell through Google, and application makers don't have to sell through Google... You might be missing out on some big markets, but you can always go someplace else. Unless everyone follows suit, in which case if you believe there is a big market for it, start your own service...

Comment: Power to the People! (Score 1) 308 308

I'm a bit of a nuclear nut. However you are right, at least about the older technological nuclear facilities. They take forever to build, then take longer, cost a massive amount of money, then cost more. They do generate a massive amount of constant energy also.

Anyway that isn't what I wanted to say. I think a great deal of the problem could be solved with some pretty simple regulation. However it might make you a political enemy of some pretty big industry monopolies.

It all comes down to what you said about "near dense population centers". One thing forgotten much of the time in the whole power debate is that the power needs to be *distributed* otherwise it is pretty useless. How is this best achieved? Well the basic principle is the longer the distance, the more resistance, the more power you need to supply, and the less efficient it becomes...

Now I've never been a huge fan of solar, largely because of the hype and lack of real advancement. However, what would perhaps drive real results? Demand. It is also pretty simple so far as technology goes, there isn't a lot of moving parts so to speak.

Basically what I am getting at is *massive* roof top solar generation by residents. How does one achieve that? Well you make it easier. You do two bits of regulation. One that would allow government to issue cheap long term loans for the purpose of residential solar. Second would be to make it easier to connect to the grid, requiring distributors to A) allow for it, B) not dissuade it by charging exorbitant fees for hookups, inverters, etc... and make it easy to sign residential to long term contracts at a rate to which more than covers the initial capitol cost.

I think in doing so you would solve most of the power issues we have. Close to market generation, a very distributed and redundant supply, etc... It would also have the net benefit in the demand would drive solar technology to become better. It would also employ a ton of people long term for installs, maintenance, building solar panels, selling solar panels, etc...

You would however have the banking industry as well as the power industry supporting pretty much everyone but your political campaign.

Anyway as I see it, it would be a big deal insofar as solving power issues, with very little actual expense on the part of government, with change largely being driven by the market improving economic situations along the way.

The only problems really being the large capitol costs upfront, and the barriers to connecting to the grid, and uncertainty of power costs/prices. Solve those, and the People will produce their own power. If you really think about it, it is kind of crazy that this (and others) technology exists, and is largely unused and not a priority, and you have to ask why. Corporate interests and politics is my guess over any kind of logistics or technological issues.

Comment: Re:Spoiler: Blames China. (Score 1) 297 297

Yeah I was thinking that after I posted it, but either way, a lot more profit regardless. I refused to buy HD for a couple of years because of it. Fortunately for me, I over bought storage just before it all went sideways, so I was able to limp along using what I already had for a long time.

In fact prior to the flood, I just bought a 2TB Seagate on sale for a media drive which I think was 79.99 on sale for 69.99 from NCIX. That exact same HD a year or so later was about 300$ which was crazy. It actually failed last year, but again I got lucky in that it failed literally about a month before the warranty ran out. However I had to backup, and lacked sufficient storage at that point, so I went out and got a 3TB at Futureshop/Bestbuy for about 130$ or something like that... After backup, I returned the 2TB Segate, and got a new one, which is still sitting in a box next to my computer because I don't really need it yet. One of these days I'll install it when I am getting a bit storage scarce.

The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.