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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:FFS just keep the Warthog (Score 1) 239

by 0123456 (#48681155) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Well, the US (unlike the Reich) pretty much has to go high-tech with its army, simply because high losses would quickly mean that support for any kind of war would decline sharply.

Only for wars that never had any popular support in the first place.

And America can't afford to lose its high-tech aircraft, because they're so expensive.

Comment: Re:stealth (Score 1) 239

by 0123456 (#48681143) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Incidentally, that's the same warload as a F-117, and no one ever complained that it didn't carry enough bombs.

That's because they had real bombers to do the grunt work. They'd sure have been complaining if the F-117 was the only bomber they had.

The F-35's stealth is only useful in a ground-attack role in a few tiny corner cases--which country, exactly, do you think it's going to be bombing which has good enough air defence for the stealth to make a difference, but not good enough that it makes no difference?--and, for that, you pay several times the cost of an aircraft that's just as capable the rest of the time. And, given the cost of losing one, odds are they'll just stay back out of range and launch missiles, the same way a cheaper aircraft would.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 239

by 0123456 (#48680501) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Isn't the F-35 heavily reliant on networked sensors to detect targets, since using radar immediately tells the other guys where it is? Doesn't that have precisely the same jamming problem as drone links?

Sure, it can keep flying without those links, but that doesn't help if it can't shoot anything.

Comment: Re:Is the premise serious? (Score 0) 239

by 0123456 (#48680463) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Duh. You don't have to worry about 'air supremacy' when fighting third-world peasants, because they don't have any planes. What you do have to worry about are anti-aircraft guns and missiles, which are vastly cheaper than F-35s.

Sending a $337,000,000 (according to the 'War Nerd' post linked above) fighter to blow up Toyotas full of peasants is like using a 30mm gatling gun to hunt ducks. It's all very exciting, and fun if you can afford it, but not very sensible.

Comment: Re:stealth (Score 2) 239

by 0123456 (#48680387) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Those "sensor pods" are shaped like external fuel tanks. They've got that rounded and curved shape, to make them aerodynamic. Which is horrible for stealth. The F35 has to pack all its baggage inside the fuselage, with minimal openings.

You do realize the F-35 has to carry most if its weapons on highly non-stealthy wing pylons for air-to-ground attacks, right? If I remember correctly, it can only carry two bombs or four air-to-air missiles internally, everything else has to go under the wings... including the external fuel tanks required for a long bombing mission.

Comment: Re:Fail. Profit! (Score 1) 239

by 0123456 (#48680353) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Actually, if that were the case, the predecessors wouldn't be as capable.

The predecessors actually have to do something in the real world, like bombing third-world peasants, while the F-35 sits in a hangar. Besides, who's really going to risk a $200,000,000 jet to blow up a $10,000 pickup with a couple of guys with RPGs in the back?

Comment: Re:5% less leg room? (Score 1) 60

by 0123456 (#48680321) Attached to: First Airbus A350 XWB Delivered, Will Start Service in January

Because everyone in Europe has a high-speed rail station outside their house from where they can take a train all the way to their destination by the direct route without stopping anywhere in between.

You're right that flying makes little sense on short routes, due to the time taken to get on and off the plane. But high-speed rail makes little sense on those routes, either. When I lived in the UK, even the relatively slow 220-ish km/h inter-city trains used to spend about the first half hour crawling out of London before they could get up to speed, then, after a few minutes at that speed, they'd be crawling in and out of the stations where they stopped along the way.

Comment: Re:Prediction: (Score 4, Insightful) 190

by daveschroeder (#48680051) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"

First of all, you say, "North Korea didn't hack Sony," as if it is an indisputable, known fact. It is not -- by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is, it cannot be proven either way in a public forum, or without having independent access to evidence which proves -- from a social, not technical, standpoint -- how the attack originated. Since neither of those are possible, the MOST that can be accurate stated is that no one, in a public context, can definitively demonstrate for certain who hacked Sony.

Blameless in your scenario is the only entity actually responsible, which is that entity that attacked Sony in the first place.

Whether that is the DPRK, someone directed by the DPRK, someone else entirely, or a combination of the above, your larger point appears to be that somehow the US is to blame for a US subsidiary of a Japanese corporation getting hacked -- or perhaps simply for existing.

As a bonus, you could blame Sony for saying its security controls weren't strong enough, while still reserving enough blame for the US as the only "jackass".


Comment: Prediction: (Score 5, Insightful) 190

by daveschroeder (#48679895) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"

Many of the same slashdotters who accept "experts" who claim NK didn't hack Sony will readily accept as truth that it was "obviously" the US that attacked NK, even though there is even less objective proof of that, and could just as easily be some Anonymous offshoot, or any number of other organizations, or even North Korea itself.

See the logical disconnect, here?

For those now jumping on the "North Korea didn't hack Sony" bandwagon that some security "experts" are leading for their own political or ideological reasons, including using rationales as puzzling and pedestrian as source IP addresses of the attacks being elsewhere, some comments:

Attribution in cyber is hard, and the general public is never going to know the classified intelligence that went into making an attribution determination, and experts -- actual and self-appointed -- will make claims about what they think occurred.

With cyber, you could have nation-states, terrorists organizations, or even activist hacking groups attacking other nation-states, companies, or organizations, for any number of motives, and making it appear, from a social and technical standpoint, that the attack originated from and/or was ordered by another entity entirely.

That's a HUGE problem, but there are ways to mitigate it. A Sony "insider" may indeed -- wittingly or unwittingly -- have been key in pulling off this hack. That doesn't mean that DPRK wasn't involved. I am not making a formal statement one way or the other; just saying that the public won't be privy to the specific attribution rationale.

Also, any offensive cyber action that isn't totally worthless is going to attempt to mask or completely divert attention from its true origins (unless part of the strategic intent is to make it clear who did it), or at a minimum maintain some semblance of deniability.

At some point you have to apply Occam's razor and ask who benefits.

And for those riding the kooky "This is all a big marketing scam by Sony" train:

So, you're saying that Sony leaked thousands of extremely embarrassing and in some cases damaging internal documents and emails that will probably result in the CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment being ousted, including private and statutorily-protected personal health information of employees, and issued terroristic messages threatening 9/11-style attacks at US movie theaters, committing dozens to hundreds of federal felonies, while derailing any hopes for a mass release and instead having it end up on YouTube for rental, all to promote one of hundreds of second-rate movies?

Comment: Re:show me the measurement for programmers (Score 1) 508

by danheskett (#48678953) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

And guess what, we issue about 3-5k of them a year, which happens to be exactly what he says he wants.

Of course, O1 requires under penalty real certification of excellence.

What Mr. Graham really wants of course is to find promising young programmers, bring them to the US for next to nothing, pay them a middling wage, and then cut him or her loose as soon that venture goes tits up. Then we have another programmer floating around, willing to work for below market wages.

Comment: Re:Mod parent up. (Score 1) 508

by danheskett (#48678943) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I'll say it: there's not a shortage of programmers, there's a shortage of valid business plans. That's SV's real problem.

Exactly. That is perfect. Silicon Valley culture sucks. The best don't all want to work there, toiling on some stupid app or web project that's going to crash and burn when Series A dry's up and you can't raise Series B.

Comment: Drop Dead (Score 3, Insightful) 508

by danheskett (#48678939) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I have a few thoughts:

1. Mr. Graham can drop dead. I had to look up who this guy is, Y Combinator has produced such companies as:

Scribd, reddit, Airbnb, Dropbox, Disqus, Stripe

These are not the companies that make the US a "tech superpower". We have a document sharing company, an online community that is 33% porn, 33% cats, and 33% reposts, a house-sharing operation that is constantly on the run from regulators, a company that resells cloud storage to end users, a company that facilitates cat-posts online, and a credit card payment processor. News flash, the world let alone the United States does not revolve around Silicon Valley and your narrow alleged needs. This guy is crazy if he thinks we are going to screw with the iron clad law of supply-and-demand and let in a "few thousand programmers" for no good reason.

2. Mr. Graham knows that he can already get in the very best programmers. We have plenty of avenues for letting in the very best. For one, it means, we have a real shortage. Secondly, it might mean we educate them here. Finally, it may mean you have to really invest in attracting the top talent internationally. That may mean - gasp - setting up foreign operations, and then domesticating the worker after a few years. That's right, Mr. Graham, years. What he really means is "we want to attract the best programmers, for cheap, chain them to a job, and then wash our hands of them when the job dries up or it doesn't work out".

3. This is yet another case of an over-privileged idiot trying to social costs and privatize profits.

4. The reason you can't find as many American top programmers to work for you is because Silicon Valley sucks. The culture sucks, the location (esp. real estate) sucks, the working environment sucks, the stability sucks. It's just another gold rush scenario, this time with Aeron chairs and floor to ceiling whiteboards, and lots of fast talk. And let's be honest. The work sucks. Most of these starts up are doing nothing at all really useful. A huge majority will fail, suddenly, having wasted everyone's time and someone poor suckers money. Spinning this as disruptive, or revolutionary is sad, and a lot of people are jaded against it. The company structure sucks. There are many programmers who have been to three, four, five failed startup operations, going through the same stress, the same pain, the same loss only to end up being told they are now too old for another try at the pie. There are no plans to provide for a long-term company, no hope for a business that is lasting and built upon solving problems that people are willing to pay to have solved.

5. The fact that Mr. Graham and his friends can't attract a few thousand of the best of the best to work for them just means that the costs outweigh the rewards. Instead of fixing their toxic culture, failing mentality, and gold rush dynamic, they want to break the country further. Because they feel entitled to have what they want, without putting in the years, or decades that other industries have to make it to stability. They've already been given a subsidized work force, where they feel entitled to reap the top talent for middling pay, massive cultural influence, outsized political influence, and regulatory preferences. And yet, they've done almost nothing for the country. We are plus 10 new billionaires, but there has been no standard of living bump for most Americans.

TLDR: Drop dead, Mr. Graham. You do something for the country, and the rest of flyover territory will think about doing something for you.

Comment: Re:didn't go didn't download, don't care (Score 4, Insightful) 145

by ScentCone (#48676319) Attached to: Crowds (and Pirates) Flock To 'The Interview'

Because not believing, with little evidence, NK is competent enough to pull this off makes you a B357 K0r34n 1337 h4xx0r.

What on earth makes you think that NK has to have the native talent? The didn't figure out how to make nukes on their own either. They didn't home-grow their substantial currency counterfeiting operation, either. They likewise don't design and build their own military equipment. But that doesn't stop them from having nukes, from doing big business in phony currency, and sinking other people's ships.

Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie