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


Forgot your password?

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

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

"Just look at North Korea, how they are still standing! DPRK wouldn't be around today lest for those 7-9 primitive nukes they hold."

There was a day before they had nukes. What protected them then?
I submit that being nestled right next to China is far more protection.

"Look at what happened to Libya and Iraq, which failed to obtain nukes and the amero-zionist cabal violently dismantled them"

Libya fell apart without much real help from us.
Iraq was invaded on the premise that they had or were attempting to obtain nukes and other WMD.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 1) 843

The A-10 is designed to fly low and slow and kill enemy tanks.
It will face enemy rifle, machine gun and anti-aircraft cannon far more than enemy air to air or ground to air missiles.
A successor would be successful in terms of making the aircraft harder to target by a/a or g/a missiles.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 1) 843

The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. That is the F-22's role.
The F-35 is an attack aircraft, basically a jack of all trades.
It can bomb, it can fight, but it isn't the best at either.

For all of me, we should:
Keep the A-10, upgrade it
Develop a Harrier successor for the Marines
Have kept the F-14, upgrading it ( the F-18 is similar to the F-35, an attack aircraft, not a great air superiority fighter )
Focused the role of the F-22

Basically, since McNamara, we keep trying to reduce costs by combining roles.
Most aircraft that have undergone this have suffered.
It is important to keep an eye on costs, but making cost the primary driver leads to failure.

But keep in mind, most aircraft go thru a teething period. Some fail, but not all.

Another megabytes the dust.