Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 824 824

The F-35A replaces the F-16 by having stealth and a useful range. [...] The F-16 found a new lease on life when the strapped an external fuel tank and targeting pod on it to give it enough range to be a bomb truck, but the extra weight of that fuel makes it shit for manoeuvrability. So the F-16 can either have range and shit manoeuvrability, or great manoeuvrability and a useless range. The F-35A has both, plus stealth, plus better infrared/optical sensors so it doesn't need a targeting pod..

Hence the significance of the article. It seems that an empty F-35 (no weapons) is still no match for an F-16 with the external fuel tank strapped on...

Comment: Re:War is Boring is shit (Score 1) 824 824

Well, can't comment on the author. But let's look at your 3 points.
1. It's a strike fighter: there we agree. What is the problem? That it is supposed to repace all other aircrafts. So it must be able to dogfight too. Sure it has a longer range but in this example the F-16 had additional tanks so that should even it up. Only it didn't. And yes the A10 can't dog fight and isn't designed for it. But the A10 doesn't need to because it was meant to be supported by F-16, F18 and F-15 aircrafts that would do everything else except close air support and hitting 'hard targets'. The F-35 is supposed to do all this by itself...

2. Indeed BVR is gaining ground and is getting more and more important. Question is: do you want to send out your pilots in an aircraft that can't dogfight? Especially if you know that it is slower than most enemy aircrafts? That means that it could be hunted down and killed without any way to escape.

3. I can't comment on the costs of the current air fleet in the US. I do know that my country (Belgium) and our close neighbour (the Netherlands) are both struggeling to find some way to make it appear as if the f-35 is affordable. On the other hand they are looking at 'synergies' like defending the combined airspace with only half the fighters in order to be able to pay for it. The cost of the f-35 is significantly higher than that of the competition (according to our media).

Comment: Re:No Source, No Story - complete bullshit (Score 1) 824 824

I can't argue about the detail of air combat, since I'm a laymen. But the way I read the article the complaint about the nose-rate was only secondary. I had the impression that the pilot was mostly complaining about a lack of engine power. And that this in combination with energy bleeding quite heavily in sharp turns and manouvers put him at a distict disadvantage.
I would imagine that if you find your aircraft underpowered that this would mean you cannot choose your engagement conditions. The other is faster and accelerates faster which means that if he is upon you, you have no way to escape.

Comment: Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score 1) 242 242

I just read the gist of the verdict (advantage of speaking Dutch). It is NOT a contractual dispute. And it is NOT about interference with politics.
It is solely based on the prudence principle. The Dutch state should do more to shield it's people from the consequences of global warming.

The idea behind this ruling is that the consequences of doing nothing or doing not enough are clear and sufficiently scientifically proven. And thus the Dutch government should act upon it. Saying 'but we are only a small country' and 'this has only sense in a broader agreement' doesn't cut it. The Dutch government should take it's responsibility and do it's part.

Therefore the court orders a reduction of 25% by 2020, which is what the IPCC puts forward as the minimum reduction necessary to keep the global warming under 2 degrees celcius. And keeping it below that level would keep (again according IPCC) the consequences at an acceptable level.

Comment: Re: Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wa (Score 5, Insightful) 422 422

So, let met get this straight. There are satellite measurements of the ice mass on antartica and they show the ice mass is melting.

And all you have to say is: there is enough ice. See those scientists are getting stuck in it. See? There you have it. Everything is fine!

What kind of leadership are people like you looking for? Someone that will give you a fresh diaper when you are shitting your pants because bad things are happening? Or someone who actually does something about it?

Comment: Re:WindOwS X (Score 1) 154 154

They'll just do what Apple did, like Windows 10.4 Tiger, Windows 10.5 Leopard, Windows 10.6 Snow Leopard, etc.

Yep. Only, if MS is still MS, they'll choose some other animal that THEY think is at least as good as the big cats. Like a bear or something.

Windows Grizzly. Not too bad.
Windows Koala. Well, let's hope people find it cute.
Windows Brown. That's it. They did it again. Those that keep their thoughts away from excrements will think about an electric razor.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 703 703

Apparently, your version of science is a "summary for policy makers", derived by "author teams" based on "expert judgment" found in working panel reports of a self-selected group of people interested in the topic and making lots of unstated and untested assumptions. Thank you, but I prefer to base my decision on actual science, not that kind of pseudo-science.

Well. Calling a document that has been produced by the top scientists in a particular area (without being paid for it) 'pseudo science' because you don't like the conclusions is not science.

BTW there is also a full version of the report which refers to the full version of the underlying reports of the 3 workgroups which in their turn refer to the underlying scientific articles. But if the first didn't convince you I have little doubt that you will categorize the rest as 'pseudo-science' too.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 703 703

All this can be found in the IPCC reports (link). They have a section "For policy makers" which explains in laymens terms exactly (with probabilities and all) what will happen most likely, how big the risks are (and how certain we are of these risks) and what is the best course of action (and why). And yes doing nothing is more costly (damage to argriculture, building higher dikes, more storms, more deseases, people on the run) than actually doing something about it.
So, there you have it. All your questions answerd...by science.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 703 703

Republicans scare me as well, but so too do the Democrats. Who thought turning over even more health care to the insurance companies was a good idea? They're the slimeballs who screwed it up in the first place. And try to get Democrats to understand the problem we'll have paying for all entitlements when they come due. They look at you like you are from Mars, claiming, by the way, the SS trust fund has x dollars in it. Really?[...]

I'm not an American, so I don't know the details. But if you are talking about making sure that everyone has healthcare insurance, that seems simply common sense. Because in healthcare there is no choice. If someone gets ill it's better to do something about it sooner than later. If you wait till later it will get much worse (life threatening) at which moment the medical costs will be much higher. And those costs need to be paid too.
So by making sure everyone has access to healthcare all the time you save everyone a big bunch of money! Don't believe me? Compare the amounts the US is spending on healthcare per gross domestic product compared to other developed coutries (tip: it's much higher) Link to WHO.
And that while all this money is used to pamper a few very rich on one hand and to perform the basic life threatening procedures on the rest.

Comment: Re:"Simulations of fusion are only 50 years away!" (Score 1) 57 57

Let's hope not. The ITER project (link for which this simulation is intended, is planning to have first plasma in 2020. Which means that the simulation, when run in 2018, will be just about in time for making last ajustments in the steering of the magnes and other anti EMP measures that are in place.

Comment: Re:Contracts (Score 2) 131 131

To me this seems like a classic case of a big player playing a game of extorsion with a small supplier.
It's as old as the street. Typical example: big retail player (think Wall Mart) says to small supplier: OK this is your big break. You can start delivering your product (say canned beans) to us. The initial order will be around 100 tons/month at 5c per kilo. The small supplier can't believe his luck and starts investing in its production facilities massively to be able to cope with the enourmous volumes.
As they are nearing the delivering time big player says: wait. We need actually 500 tons but only at 3,5c per kilo.
The supplier has 2 choices: comply but the price will never cover the extra investments for the even higher volumes. Or not comply and that means immediate bankrupcy.
Of cource in this case the big player has made a mistake. The idea is to make demands that are feasable.

So in my opinion it's Microsoft being ruthless and stupid all over again like in good old times...

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...