Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The mistake was having one plane do everything (Score 1) 480 480

Saying logistics is important is not something I'm contradicting.

I already pointed out to you that we had far more machines and more logistical complexity during WW2 and we were fine.

Seriously, what do you even think the logistical issue is here?

Repair parts? That's about it... no?

On the basis of repair parts you can't justify a plane that is much more expensive and much less capable.

The Navy, Army, etc would much rather have more planes that work better and have to deal with a couple extra crates of spare parts at a large airfield. Note I say large airfield. because the smaller ones aren't going to have this diversity. The airfields tend to specialize in these situations as the different departments grab their own territory and then put their hardware in place.

And on top of that, the Navy is talking about putting high end 3d printers on their ships so they can MAKE parts.

Regardless, that is the last time I'm talking about logistics. The logistical problem with having 12 planes is not a big problem. Having planes that are too expensive and don't work well is a bigger problem and it can't be solved without splitting the plane up to more specialized planes.

I assume you're not going to be mentally able to move beyond this issue... I know that sounds offensive but it isn't intentional... you're just not seeing how myopic and stubborn you're sounding on the issue. So... unless you move on beyond logistics... kindly don't waste any more of my time.

Comment: Re:The mistake was having one plane do everything (Score 1) 480 480

First, the logistical complexity thing is bullshit. I'm not listening to that anymore. We had lots and lots of different things going at once during WW2 and it was fine.

All this logistical crap boils down to is MONEY.

And the money issue would be relevant if not for the fact that 12 different craft are actually cheaper than one generalized craft.

The reason being that it is more effective, more efficient, more survivable, and does not need to be changed unless something happens to the baffle field in relation to it specifically.

So for example, if you have an all in one craft... not only does it have all the other problems I pointed out, but if ANY ONE of the things it is supposed to do becomes obsolete, the entire craft has to be changed. Where as with 12... only the one that is actually effected has to change.

Take all the hardware we still use that we developed during Vietnam. Why do we still use that stuff nearly unchanged from that point? Because nothing has really changed for them.

So for example the A10 still works just fine. The AC130 Specter works just fine. The B52 works just fine.

The only relevant thing that has changed is that AA missiles have gotten better.

That's it.

The latest Russian or Chinese or any nation's tank is fucking meat against an A10. None of them can defend themselves. The reactive armor, the faster speed... none of it matters. The A10 chews threw modern tanks pretty much the same way it did through tanks of its era.

So you need tech that deal with the AA... you need stealth and drones etc. But you don't need all of that in one package. That's crazy.

You have some stealth capable deep strike craft that can penetrate enemy territory and knock out their air defense. There are some very good cruise missiles that are excellent for that as well. And once they've done their work those tanks are naked. The tank crews might as well just get out of the tank and go find a trench. The tank is garbage once air cover is gone.

And this is the thing with the F35. Do the marines need a VTOL stealthy jet that has very little weapon's capacity, very short range, can't dog fight, is poor at supporting ground troops... etc etc etc. No they don't.

Its garbage.

As I said, give the marines the VTOL jet from Boeing. Its every bit as good as the F35 minus the stealth... and the stealth is not something the marines need... and its way cheaper which means the marines can have more of them.

Frankly the marines would probably be better served with attack helicopters. That seems more their speed. I know the Navy Seals like their attack helicopters.

As to the Navy... they have no need for the F35 PERIOD. They have super carriers so they can launch less annoying airplanes.

The F15, F16, and 18 are all quite capable. What they lack is the stealth... and frankly the value of that is increasingly dubious.

The army has a completely different mentality than the Marines or the Navy or the air force. First, the marines all about logistics. That is their bread and butter. And beyond that they always have big airfields because they need them for the cargo planes and the bigger bombers which is what they prefer. So the army doesn't need the F35 either.

As to the Air force... the plane they want is the F22. Ideally they wouldn't touch the F35 and if you push them on the issue, they'd prefer the drones over the F35.

Its an impressive airplane but war is about achieving military goals and the F35 is not a good tool for that.

Its too many things and it does them all badly.

The biggest problem is the VTOL and the stealth. Both of those features are really hard to put into an airframe.

The VTOL makes the plane very heavy and means you can't put much into it and it means the plane can't have proper wings because it has to narrower if it is VTOL. The stealth basically compounds that situation because stealth also means you don't want big wings and on top of that you can't carry very much because everything has to be internal. So no external pods which is a massive drawback with a war plane. Unless you're B2 or B52, you don't have the internal volume to put a proper bomb load in the plane. So maybe you can launch two or three missiles and then you're done.

And to add insult to injury even if you wanted to... the plane couldn't vertically lift off with a full load like that. You might have to do something annoying like take off with minimum fuel and then refuel in flight. The entire thing is silly.

VTOL is okay if you need it. But having a plane be BOTH VTOL AND STEALTH... AND a bomber... AND a fighter... no.

It then sucks at everything.

Here is what we need

we need close support bombers. They don't need to be stealth. Something like the A10 if not literally the A10. If you need VTOL... consider helicopters. If you need stealth... a battery cruise missiles will probably take care of the air defense network that makes you want stealth in the first place... and will likely do it for less than your stealth planes. Yes the cruise missiles are single use but the per unit cost versus the number of engagements the planes will actually go through means they're actually pretty economical. If you're dropping 100 million dollars on every plane and they're only going to need their stealth capability perhaps 10 times in their service life... a 1~2 million dollar cruise missile is a bargain.

I could go on... but the F35 project is a hot mess.

Comment: Re:The mistake was having one plane do everything (Score 1) 480 480

It isn't a trade off. The added logistics costs are already far below what this stupid project has already cost.

And indifferent to that, the F35 is objectively inferior to 12 different specialized planes. So you're not saving money and your doing a less effective job.

aka total and complete failure.

Grade F. Come see me after class.

Comment: Re:The mistake was having one plane do everything (Score 1) 480 480

The size doesn't make them expensive. Take a cargo ship and give it a flat top. That is what we did in WW2. It works fine. YES YES... you couldn't make the literal same fucking ship because the planes are different. But in concept you could generally the same thing.

What makes warships expensive is pretty much everything but size and the size of the deck. So just start with the requirement that you have a reasonable deck size and then you won't have these problems.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 104 104

Your link equated the concentrations of CO2 with that of a poison.

That stupid.

First, lets go over the only spectrum that CO2 even absorbs... now overlay that with the spectrums of other compounds in the atmosphere like water vapor and you're left with a tiny sliver of UNIQUE spectrum that it blocks.

The painted window analogy is also stupid because CO2 isn't analogous to opaque paint. Its if you like analogous to basically transparent paint. And a thin layer of it at that.

The climate models that that started this whole thing were based on studies of Venus... which is dominated by CO2.

And another point, Venus actually isn't made hot because of CO2. Its made hot instead because it is closer to the sun and its atmosphere is a lot denser. Compare the temperature of venus to the temperature of earth AT one atmpsohere which is earth sea level and you'll find that venus's temps aren't that much higher than the earth's. The issue is that you can keep going down in Venus's atmosphere and it gets hotter as you do.

The same thing can be found on every planet with an atmosphere. Descend into Jupitor and stop at about 1 atmosphere and you'll find the temperature is again not that different from earth. Jupitor is obviously colder at one atmosphere and Venus is hotter. But they're all at different distances from the sun.

The composition of the atmosphere is less relevant than its density. So even the initial premise is dubious.

Now why is that sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 special? It isn't. The sun doesn't emit appreciably more energy on it and that spectrum plays no special part keeping the earth warm or cool. The relevant factor is the density of the entire atmosphere. And nothing we've done has changed that.

And then you have to take into consideration that the amount any gas is going to block something in the air is going to be relative to its concentrations.

The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are low. Plants have to actually work very hard to get CO2 which is why green house growers will often pump CO2 into the green house to accelerate plant growth.

Now if you actually want to talk about this... then we can do that. If instead like most of the progressive fucktards your only interest is in censoring and silencing the opposition then you can fuck yourself sideways with a rake.

Comment: The mistake was having one plane do everything (Score 1) 480 480

... the idea was to have one plane do everything and of course the result was that it does everything poorly.

What you want is not one plane but maybe a dozen different types that all do different things.

The A10s are the tank buskers. Using the F35 for close ground support is dumb. The need to take off from a crap airfield which is something the marines like?... Boeing has some very cheap VTOL planes that should have taken that role up.

The british that refuse to put a catapult on their ships should just stick with the harrier until they get over that and put a catapult on their decks. Maybe the new magnetic ones will be more acceptable to them.

The idea I suppose was that if they had one plane they'd save money on maintenance. But that clearly hasn't happened. I'd cut losses and shift to more planes doing different roles.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 104 104

what does profanity have to do with anything, fucktard?

I never claimed I didn't use profanity and using or not using it doesn't make someone right or wrong.

As to bingo, he admits it. I've talked to him about it a few times. He's been following me for months.

His posts are really distinctive... I don't think i've ever miss addressed him... he's that obvious. And as I said, I've talked to him about it. He has reasons... bordom apparently that compel him to troll someone and I got picked.

If it were just him I wouldn't have such a low opinion of ACs... my real issue is that practically all the really stupid posts are from ACs. I don't know why that is... possibly the additional anonymity causes ACs to think even less about what they post? Its hard to say.

But they're almost entirely without value in the community. Whatever the intention, the AC login system basically just enables sock puppeting and trolling. I grant that you could use it for a good purpose but I haven't seen it used that way to any significant extent.

Comment: Re:Dream on (Score 1) 191 191

why pay 100 dollars for what you could do just by removing them from your channel guide?

I did that to my parents cable system. I don't use cable myself... there's nothing I care about on it.

But my dad was having a hard time because his system has like a 1000 channels and he's personally only interested in perhaps 20 of them. Which left the poor guy scrolling through endless garbage he doesn't care about.

So I sat down with him and we blocked all the Spanish stations, all the home shopping stations, all the pay per view movie stations, all the stations he isn't subscribed to, etc etc etc.

In the end he was left with a couple news stations, the sports stations, and a couple other stations that have shows or movies he likes.

What is obnoxious is that you can't NOT pay for those stations.

The package pricing system should be al la carte. You pick the stations you want... pay for those... and everything else gets dumped.

And that will only last until all the cable stations worth actually paying for become streaming services.

And even better, is if you only paid for the programs you actually want to watch.

Take HBO... is there anything on HBO at this point worth watching besides game of thrones? If so I'm ignorant of it.

Here is what makes sense to me... are you familiar with TellTale games? They do episodic casual story driven PC games.

What is important though is the business model. What they'll do is sell the episodes individually or in series packages. I normally buy the whole series. its cheaper and I only do it when I know I'm going to enjoy it. I bought the Wolf Amongst Us for example.

The point is that television series should work the same way.

Forget even the channel/station. that's like subscribing to everything paramount or Warner brothers puts out... never mind that most people are only going to like a fraction of it.

What we should be doing is subscribing to specific shows. No package. or at least it should be an option.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 104 104

I don't stalk anyone, you complete fucking retard.

Look at my posting history. I basically never post in response to someone else's posts.

What i do is make my own post to a topic and then people post in response to that and then I respond to them.

That means people come to ME. I don't stalk anyone. Go through my posting history. I don't even read other people's comments outside of my own threads. I see an article I want to comment on... and I comment on.

People only get responses from me when they respond TO ME.

So saying I stalk people when really you're the AC dipshit that joined MY thread to harass ME... is frankly beyond the fucking pale. If you were a cartoon you'd be strike by lightening for being a hypocrite.

And an idiot.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 104 104

The only thing you said in there that was relevant was your assertion at the end that the temps are going up.

Lets look at that.

First, the surface temperature is based on increasingly smaller numbers of stations. By the own rating system of various people that compile these into ONE global temperature number they're mostly not very accurate. And even when they are, the majority of the cited warming occurs in places there are no stations or very very few. Nearly all the warming for example is supposed to be at the poles. But there are almost no stations in the poles.

The majority of the world's surface temp data... and down to a fraction of a degree no less is abstracted from a shrinking number of stations with everything in between being a guess. A guess with math... but still a guess.

To make matters more complicated the sat data is adjusted to match the surface data. When the stats were launched they were believed to be quite accurate. Since then they have their readings INCREASED every year basically to harmonize them with the surface stations.

The current "correction" is about .4 C... or nearly exactly the amount of warming that your crowd says we've had since then.

Which is itself very convenient. Why would the sats have a calibration error that is from what I can see.. precisely what warming you're citing? Doesn't that seem more than a little coincidental?

The calibration error should be more or less than that. And yet... bang on the same figure you're citing the world warmed.

In regards to the ocean, the depths of the ocean are not warming. All this warming is happening at the surface and much of that is a result of climate cycles that are well understood. We went through a warming cycle from 1860 to 1940 I believe. There are papers on file citing that and then it cooled. But the point is that the temperature is not sinked in the depths. It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters. I can cite the NASA findings on that point if you doubt me.

As to sea level rise, we're talking about what amounts to very small changes in sea level and there is no way to know how much of that is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle.

We get these changes during la nina and el ninos amongst other cycles. So saying that this is a long time trend would require long time data that went outside the scope of your information. You're thus overstating your knowledge.

As to Ice mass, that appears to be an oversimplification. There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice and there are regions that are stable. From what I've been able to tell, the places that are losing ice typically have lots of reasons for the ice declining besides global climate change. There are quite a few geothermal vents for example.

What is more it is relevant that you're citing ice mass and not ice extent. Because ice mass is difficult to estimate and ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline.

There are low years and sometimes that will persist for awhile but it springs back. The alarmists were citing ice extent for awhile but then the data shifted on them and they started talking about ice mass which is relatively very hard to estimate with any accuracy.

What is more, if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far. The fact that we're not suggests that the ice being lost in one place is either not that much or is being compensated for somewhere else.

Just stop for a moment. How much ice are you saying has melted in the last 100 years or... pick your time period. By volume or weight... just give me your rough estimate.

I've seen numbers ranging from around 60~100 Ã-- 10^6 square kilometers... most of that in the Antarctic.

So how much of that do you say has melted. Because here it becomes very easy to see if it actually happened. We can look at the volume of water in the oceans and compare the change to your ice loss figures. And once once of course we remove volume from the oceans that are attributable to thermal expansion and other things known to not be ice... I think you're going to find you have significantly less water in the seas than you'd need to justify your predictions of doom.

If you want citations for something, then ask for them. I'm not bothering at this point because it takes slightly longer and a certain amount of this should just be taken for common knowledge by anyone familiar with the issue.

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.