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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Flawed Assumption (Score 1) 165

You (and almost everyone here) miss the point. If you have a budget for a new TV, and find one that meets your requirements at a store for MSRP, but also find out they have it down the street for 20% off, would you still pay full price because that's "fair?" The company isn't going to pay you any more than they have to. If they can hire three cheap employees who each do 80% the work of two highly paid employees for the same total cost, they will. It doesn't matter how much value they bring to the company unless it drops below their cost threshold. (yeah yeah, take into account replacement costs, quality of work, public relations, etc...)

Comment Re:I may have missed it but (Score 2) 320

I hope you don't get all your info from hit pieces written by folks whose primary agenda is to drive clicks. Go talk to some Marines. They don't like the Harrier, it's slow, it's vulnerable, it has no legs, can't carry any kind of reasonable payload, and has a terrible safety record. Actually ask a Marine pilot, especially one who has flown both, which they would take into battle today given a choice. I bet you would get a similar answer to the one I got which was "F-35 any day of the week." You managed to pick the one airplane being replace by F-35 which is indisputably worse. Even without stealth and sensors the F-35 is vastly superior to the Harrier. You add stealth and sensors into the mix and the Harrier looks like the relic from the 1960s that it is. You want to have an actual debate on the merits? Talk about the F-18 C/D that is being used by the Marines. I'm not saying the F-18 wins, but I'm saying at least there would be a debate.

Comment Re:Why do this? (Score 2) 112

Because people aren't good at math and normalizing data for comparisons. Verizon offers a tack on plan that lets you essentially do the same thing as before, it is just that you can now see the actual impact on your bill. Back in the olden days, if you didn't upgrade your phone at the end of two years, you were getting ripped off because your monthly bill didn't drop. Now it does.

Comment Re:It is what it is (Score 1) 332

Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.

So the American war crimes started way before the atomic bomb was dropped then? Let's be consistent, the commanding generals of most of the air forces in WWII were war criminals is, I believe, what you are trying to say. The type of weapon is a red herring, the cities would have been burned to the ground anyway, with probably similar loss of life (see the firebombing of Tokyo). Most of the Japanese cities were already bombed or burned out, the only difference is with the weapons used. The only reason those cities remained at all was because they were slated for the atomic bombs. And make no mistake, the type of weapon used saved American lives on those two days, probably a few hundred in those raids alone. Prior bombing campaigns were conducted with massive numbers of bombers and some were always lost. This was done with just a few B-29s and no American airmen were lost.

Also note that in Japan war manufacturing was located in civilian population centers, much of which was distributed into the residential areas in mom and pop shops with only a few employees mostly to make small components that would feed the major factories. Japan knew full well what it was doing when it set up that way, they were trying to hide war production behind civilians.

Curtis LeMay was man enough to recognise that strategic bombing, that is the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets to break the will of the enemy was a war crime.

That is not what strategic bombing is. That is terror bombing. Strategic bombing is trying to destroy the economy, infrastructure, sources of raw material, and industry used to wage war. Civilian impact is incidental and caused by the intentional placement of war production in civilian areas. I'm not saying there wasn't some terror bombing going on from both sides, but there is a difference.

And he would have ended as a criminal had he not been on the victorious side. History and law is written by the victors always. And many times this skews the moral analysis of the events.

Of course he would have, so would a lot of other allied leaders.

If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.