Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 215

by Zak3056 (#48682115) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

Yeah, I get the in universe explanation, what I question is why this was an issue in the first place. A mech carrying around a giant pistol should be all the inspiration you need to get from point a to point b , and it's not like it's a big engineering challenge given that you already managed to modularize the thing into a pistol form factor to begin with (especially when you civilization is keeping FTL travel going with spot and balling wire... You've got to have some seriously talented engineers).

Maybe they just had really aggressive patent attorneys in the star league era? Like "on the internet" patents turned into "on a battlemech" patents and ComStar held the IP with multi century terms, while the clans were the actual successor (no pun intended) in interest... The whole battle of Tukayyid thing was actually over who owned the omnimech rights, which is why they called it a trial. Make about as much sense as the actual storyline, I guess.

Comment: Re:Monkeys deserve more respect (Score 1) 167

by HiThere (#48680963) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"

If you do it on purpose, yes.

I do not presume that all lies are reprehensible. But intentionally misleading someone is a lie. Some times, however, staying silent isn't a real option, and speaking honestly would be injurious (to someone, perhaps yourself).

OTOH, false and defamatory statements *are* always reprehensible, even if the entity you are commenting about is excessively vile. And true statements can never be defamatory, except to a lawyer or a judge.

Comment: Re: This is MY suggestion on how to start to fix t (Score 0) 114

by lgw (#48680945) Attached to: 13,000 Passwords, Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce, Porn Sites

Dang, man, you're really worried - did you get one of the CCs that still charges you the first $50 for fraud? Might try one with a $0 fraud promise.

Or is it something worse? Did you use your real email address for that furry porn site, and now it might have leaked? Sucks to be you, man.

Comment: Re:Prediction: (Score 1) 167

by HiThere (#48680917) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"

That's not Occam's razor, that's "Cui Bono?". Occam's razor says to not multiply entities excessively. But the problem isn't multiplying entities here, it's that there are already too many visible entities to reach a single conclusion. We know that the US govt. exists, that Sony exists, that lots of hacker collectives exist, that...etc. We don't know which are significant. We *do* know that all of the above are quite willing to lie when it suits their interests.

Pick a collection of known facts and make a hypothesis that you can't invalidate. Occam's razor won't help you pare things down, because the known facts support too many plausible stories. And NONE of them are testable. So don't believe your own story, or anyone else's. Realize that the story you choose to accept in this instance says more about you than about what happened, and don't believe it. You can't always know what actually happened. There are too many liars and too many suspects.

Comment: Re:Release all the data you didn't (Score 1) 167

by HiThere (#48680865) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"

Will they be prosecuted? Perhaps they got indemnity first.

The story I build around this has the Sony episode as a bit part in something centered around South Korea's nuclear piles. And Obama *was* talking to some diplomats from China right before this started, and China is N.Korea's Internet supplier.

I *know* that my version is just a story. But I also realize that that's all everyone's version is, except those with inside information. Most of the latter aren't talking, and the ones that are have a reputation for lying.

Comment: Re: stealth (Score 1) 215

by lgw (#48680479) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets

The F35 and F22 aren't "stealth" fighters in that way - not like the B2. It's expected the enemy knows they're there. They're stealthy enough to get missile lock long before the enemy fighter does, and that's all that matters today. Dogfight indeed.

Drones will probably take over during the service life of the F35, but since we're not there yet we needed something. Sadly, we get this plane that's great at nothing but pork delivery, but it's not a complete waste of time. It's just sad that it was used as an excuse to stop building the F22, which really was great at air superiority, which is likely the last thing the drones take over.

Comment: Re:FFS just keep the Warthog (Score 4, Informative) 215

Yes, that is very true. The USMC is the closest we have ever had to what you are proposing.

I think that merely changing the organization for service-oriented (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) to one service with "specialty branches" (or whatever you want to call them) would not change anything. Sure, it may offer some small amount of consolidation, but that is what DoD was created to do. (Yeah, I know... obvious jokes will follow). Seriously, though, as long as the combined size is about the same and the respective size of the service branches (or "specialty branches") stays the same, all you will have done is to (slightly) rearrange the deck chairs.

On a positive note, having been in the Army National Guard for over 25 years (including overseas deployments), I have worked with both the Navy and the Air Force. I cannot speak specifically to the "historical antagonism" the gf mentioned, but I can say that overall, everybody I worked with generally wanted to do a good job without deference to service branch. That especially includes a USAF NCO who I knew for a short period of time and was killed by the enemy.

Comment: Re:Prediction: (Score 4, Insightful) 167

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".


"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening