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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Submission + - Bright light seen from Mexico, CA, AZ. ( 2

Duhavid writes: A bright light was reported seen from many locations.
The consensus seems to be that it was a Trident missile submarine test launch from near Point Magu, CA.

I saw it myself, leaving a restaurant in San Diego, CA ( Mira Mesa blvd ). It did not look like what I would expect a meteor or a missile launch would look like. It held fairly steady in both height above the horizon and bearing. Color changed from orange-ish to white, then it looked like white through fog. Apparent size changed little during my viewing. How could it have been a Trident launch? It is a ballistic missile, how could there not have been significant altitude change?

Comment Re:Sad (Score 2) 239

So, government would have no say in the business realm?

Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.

And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
That power can be used that way, and is, but that is because our choices in any given election are dictated by wealth/power.

Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
That you don't seem to see that indicates a narrow or willful view to me.
Taxation, disproportionate or otherwise
A, money should not equal speech.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
        Paying more seems fair to me.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
        Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.

" To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous"
Oligarchy/ plutarchy.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
Your statement amounts to "those who pay more should have more say". That is not democracy.

"Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals"

Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 239

I would venture that more are educated about the basics of our government, and that they are capable for forming opinions.
I would agree that more and better education would be very excellent, and would help.
But I have to disagree on the "who gets to yell loudest' part.
And one does not have to depend on the other.

Comment Sad (Score 0) 239

This is the first of many things that need to change.
Money needs to be out of politics. Buying office leads to plutarchy. not democracy.
For all the "what about my speech" people, you gain it not lose it.
In the current system only the wealthy have any real speech.
Yes, people vote, but there is no real voice, only selecting between awful choices presented by the powerful.

Comment Re:Sounds impressive, but is it? (Score 1) 83

"I just don't see how this could possibly be the execs fault. Did they direct the Engineers to design faulty suspension? Did they direct the Engineers to make cars wireless systems vulnerable to hacking? Did they direct engineers to make the gas tank likely to catch on fire?"

I dont know, but I can see how it might be the execs fault:
Eng: We should have engine management, steering management, antilock brake management control systems in these airgap'd modules
Exec: Oh, dear, well, but wont that cost more?
Eng: Yes, a bit.
Exec: You realize that saving $1.00 on each car makes us millions+ ( depending on how many cars they build each year ).
Eng: Yes, well, It isnt a good idea.
Exec: Dont care! This is money we are talking about! No airgap. And it will make updates easier, we will only need one "point in".

Comment Re:they made the planes the bombed pearl harbor (Score 4, Insightful) 85

"Yep, those civilians were totally to blame for Pearl Harbor. They deserved to die."

Others have spoken to the military targets near, and what other options there were, and I think to the point that the nuclear bombs did not cause the most casualties, and are only the most memorable.

But, further,
A, the guys at Pearl Harbor, and all the other places people died in the early stages of the war,
were they responsible for the issues that made Japan feel like an attack was a good idea?
Did they deserve to die? Did they deserve to die as they did? ( read about the Bataan death march, among other atrocities )
( noted that this does not make the civilians in Japan deserving of death, particularly )

B, how else would you have proceeded in the political leadership of America's place?
What do you think they should have done instead?
A bit of a rhetorical question, but seriously posed.

If you think about responding with "negotiate", i'm going to suggest more reading/research on your part.
Civilians jumped off cliffs during the invasion of Okinawa.
Japanese soldiers were still found on Pacific islands, waiting for the return of the victorious Japanese on into the 1970's
( my point being how fanatical some could be coming out of that society )

Comment Re:Ethics? (Score 2) 190

I understand your dilemma.

I think that part of the difference is
    A, the harm they can do to you
    B, the inability to have cooperation with them.

If you could negotiate with them ( stay away from the house, I'll refrain from killing you, maybe spend part of the money saved on traps and poisons on some food, left away from the house periodically ), maybe you would. I would. But, we cant. So, what are our alternatives? Kill them, drive them away, or put up with the damage they do, the harm they can do to us and our loved ones.

Comment Re:Ethics? (Score 2) 190

"What makes you think aliens aren't doing it already?"

A La the Matrix? Perhaps.

"If they are doing it, we wouldn't care."

Once we knew, we would care.

"Because we couldn't notice - anymore than the rats do."

They don't? How do you know?

"Those rats will definitely do a lot better than the rats that I called the exterminator on last week."

Not necessarily. Are they confused, frightened, in pain? Dead might be better.

"The main problem with your argument is that you are granting greater capabilities to the rats than they have. I'm not talking about hypothetical souls, I'm talking about comprehensive power. The rats are not smart enough to understand any of what we are proposing doing to them."

Smart is only part of the issue. What about what happens to them as these things are done to them? What do they experience? Are we right in doing it to them? Why is this needed?

"Secondly, as below, as above fails many ways. It is not transitive. Just as humans ascribe greater rights to a intellectually challenged human than we do to mammals and greater rights to mammals than we do to bacteria (you don't hear about bacteria abuse cases), intelligent aliens should grant greater rights a talking, tool using humans than they do to non-talking, non-tool using mammals. If they don't, then they are no better than criminals that abuse animals."

It succeeds in many ways. And why does it have to be transitive.
We do ascribe greater rights as creatures climb in intellectual capability.
Why should that allow us the right to tamper?
And are we being criminals that abuse animals in doing things like this?

"Rights are not an all or nothing affair - they are granted based on various factors, including intelligence."

I see your point. Pain and discomfort and utility to the species being so used should be part of those "various factors".

Comment Re:Most stock markets ... (Score 1) 364

"If it was really based on mass delusion, then you should be able to profit from it greatly"

If it is based on rationality and logic, why do we keep having booms and crashes?

Taking your statement and modifying it:

If it was really based on mass delusion, then ***someone*** should be able to profit from it greatly.

And they do, dont they?

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 1) 843

I'm *very* well aware that for a Naval aircraft, the second engine is a required feature.
That fact is why the engines are spaced so far apart on the late, great F-14. They are so far apart because the designers wanted to increase the likelihood that the other engine would survive if the aircraft were hit ( or if an engine tore itself apart, possibly due to battle damage ) It was important enough that they lived with the fact that being so far apart would tend to put the aircraft in a spin if one did go out ( as made famous in TopGun ).

My comment was that for general export sales to non Naval customers that second engine is *not* a sales feature. See my other post, the F-18 is heavier, will likely have higher operating costs, and is more expensive. For an air force flying from traditional land bases, as most export countries would be, the F-16 is the better choice. You can just about buy two F-16's for the cost of an F-18.
For a country looking to buy aircraft for their aircraft carriers, the F-18 would be the only choice between the two, even a "navalized" F-16 would lack the very important in that scenario second engine.

For an aircraft that is supposed to command the entire Pacific, I would actually want a more capable aircraft than the F-18. The F-18 is less expensive operationally than the F-14 was, and is aerodynamically better, but it does not have the range or payload ( during some missions against Afghanistan, the F-18 could not haul bombs to the distance the F-14 was able to. So, they put the bombs on the fighter ( the F-14 ), and had the attack aircraft ( the F/A-18 ) fly cover.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 1) 843

It is hard to "strip off" the naval stuff.
You can remove the tail hook, but the stuff they do to the airframe to make it strong enough to keep the tail from coming apart under that abuse would require a large redesign.
The landing gear are likewise stronger than a "normal" aircraft, and would require redesign.

From the below, 120 miles of range, lower ordnance load, and, unless the L was half price, a higher acquisition cost. Operational costs are probably higher, spares are probably more, fuel cost are probably higher( greater range, two engines to feed, more weight ( more fuel, navalized parts, etc ).
Not a great value for non-Naval airforces.

( numbers from wikipedia )
cost: 19 m
range: 340 mi
payload: 17,000lbs
speed: mach 2

cost: 29 m
range: 460 mi
payload:13,700 lbs
speed: mach 1.8

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.