Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Nobel? (Score 2) 138

by The Grim Reefer (#48681563) Attached to: The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

"It is powerful because it depicts Kim Jong-un as a vain, buffoonish despot, alternating between threats and weeping that he's been misunderstood. The people around him have all the signs of fear you might expect with a despot â" they second-guess his likes and dislikes. Maybe he â" and they â" were right to fear the film. North Korean defectors sometimes smuggle USB sticks with films and soaps into the closed-off country, and there is a view in the south that these are a particularly powerful means of undermining the regime in Pyongyang. If that's so, The Interview might be a good candidate for inclusion."

If nothing else, it's rather sad that Seth Rogen and James Franco are able to have a bigger impact on North Korea than sanctions and every diplomat and US president since the end of the Korean War.

This sounds like Nobel Peace Prize buzz to me. ;-)

Comment: Re: Huh (Score 1) 220

How low do you think their typical operational ceiling will be? These aren't bi-planes flying during WWI. While the F-35 is supposed to be able to take over for the A-10 in close air support, it's not even remotely designed for it, and will never be effective at it. The F-35 is not as robust, cannot fly as slow, nor loiter nearly as long. In the end it either won't be used in that role, or will be discontinued in that role as it will be a miserable failure at close air support. In it's typical operational altitude, smoke will not be and issue.

Comment: Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score 1) 117

by The Grim Reefer (#48676067) Attached to: US Navy Sells 'Top Gun' Aircraft Carrier For One Penny

Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.

Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.

Yes, by today's standards. But you made a comparison to a time when the US actually was willing to, and did use atomic bombs in anger. Do you think the US would have shown the same restraint in January of 1945 if they had an Ohio class sub? My guess is that all 24 Trident II SLBMs would have been MIRVed and every one would have had 8 physics packages. They would have been willing to launch every single one at that point in time. Just as they nuked Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima because the Japanese asked for four conditions to surrender rather than unconditionally.

Comment: Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score 5, Insightful) 117

by The Grim Reefer (#48673845) Attached to: US Navy Sells 'Top Gun' Aircraft Carrier For One Penny

On August 14 1945, the Navy had in active service 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 361 frigates, and 232 subs: a total of 6786 ships, including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 3.4 million.

Imagine that, we had a shitload of active warships and manpower in the US Navy fourteen days prior to the surrender of Japan during WWII. That was almost 4 years after Pearl Harbor. What was the US Navy looking like in 1939? Nowhere near what it was at the end of the Pacific campaign.

On September 30 2006, the Navy had 0 battleships, 12 carriers, 27 cruisers, 54 destroyers, 35 frigates, and 74 subs: a total of 318 ships including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 0.35 million.

And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945. As cool as battleships are, they are a relic and have no real function in the current military. A single carrier group from the current Nimitz class could obliterate all 28 fleet carriers and support ships before they even knew what had happened. Technology has made the requirement for massive amounts of ships meaningless. The amount of manpower is also significantly reduced. You also can't compare the necessary number of ships during a massive multi-year war to post cold war times. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are regional conflicts at best and not even against the country itself. Massive amounts of firepower are generally not wise when fighting insurgents. You don't carpet bomb an entire village when there are only 4 hostiles in it. .

The size has shrunk considerably since 2006. This despite having twice the national population to draw upon. The Navy can barely man its ships, let alone sparing "manpower" for non-essential tasks. And just like the merchant marine, knowledge, specialties, and capabilities have been cut way back. There are no more hundreds of sailors manning the engine rooms in large ships. The engines are automated.

The cold war is over and the US is not at war with any large governments any longer. Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower? Look at the number of men in the Iraqi military compared to the US. How did those superior numbers work out for them? In the case of carriers they are also nuclear. You don't need men to shovel coal into boilers any longer either.

Comment: Re:Communist "loyalty" exam... (Score 2) 162

Sure they do. But leaving the country and leaving life are often the same in this case. I'm not sure many people would choose to leave. It's my understanding that those people in this group are treated extremely well. Especially compared to the average citizens of North Korea. Plus I'm sure if you have and love your family you're not going to screw it up for them either.

Comment: Re:more NOS and less lense flare (Score 1) 327

Has to be better than Star Trek 2

I don't know. I thought when Benedict Cumberbatch introduced himself to Kirk and Spock was freaking hilarious. "My... Name... is,,, Khaaa-na!" Not "Khan Noonien Singh". Just "Khaaa-na"

I so wanted to see Kirk reply. "Nice to meet you Khaaa Nah. I'm Ka-eeeeerk"

Apparently no one else was named Khan in the past 300 years since his disappearance. It would be like Jack the Ripper showing up and introducing himself to someone today at "Jaaa-ck" and expecting them to know who is was.

Who introduces them self that way? I think I'll try that during my next job interview.

Comment: Re:Us, not them (Score 1) 185

by The Grim Reefer (#48660337) Attached to: Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"

Please don't misunderstand me.I was one of those kids who brought home every wounded or orphaned animal I found as a kid and raised or nursed them back to health. I haven't changed much and have kept animals most of my life and feel they should be treated well. But to claim they have a sense of "humanity" is a little strange to me and anthropomorphizes most (if not all) beyond reason.

Did the dog in the example you mentioned not take the flavorless treat because it thought it was "unfair" or because it simply didn't find the treat appealing? Even if it was due to it being unfair, that's hardly a human only trait. My daughter had a pet rat who would turn down treats it liked if it thought you had something else that it liked even better.

Dogs have been domesticated for a very long time. Longer than recorded history. When I was young I read that dogs wagging their tails when they are happy was not something that they naturally did. I never really believed it. But I had a wolf hybrid, when I was in my late teens, who didn't wag his tail. I also found a stray German Shepherd who was on his own for most of the first two years of his life. He never wagged his tail either. I currently have a two year old Doberman who was given virtually no human or animal contact for the first 9 months of her life and was in a shelter for over a year after that. I've had her for close to a year now and she has just recently started wagging her tail(nub) as she's seen our other two dogs doing it.

Dogs are pack animals and have a very strict hierarchy. They protect the pack and, in most cases, their humans are the alphas.

Comment: Re:Whose fault is this? (Score 1) 225

by The Grim Reefer (#48651901) Attached to: GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

Intelligence officers ... changed their communications methods

So they foolishly abandoned whatever they were doing to make a point and it's biting them in the ass. Waaaah. Let the stupidest lose.

You may want to work on your reading comprehension a little. Unless you work for a politician or one of the 24 hour news networks. In which case you took things out of context just about perfectly.

From TFS: Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

The pronoun, "they" refers to the criminal gangs. As in the criminal gangs are the ones who changed their communication methods.

Comment: Re:40 is an artificial boundary (Score 1) 285

by The Grim Reefer (#48648135) Attached to: At 40, a person is ...

Significant figures (as a mathematical term), precision, and rounding are a little different than you seem to think. Significant figures only deal with zeros preceding or following a set of numbers. Which doesn't seem to be what you are referring to. 5.4717696 has eight significant figures. 5.500000 has two.

Obliviously you accept errors much more readily than I do. Granted, I generally don't measure out to quite as far as I did in my examples, but I was simply making a point. Which you apparently didn't comprehend. 3.4 miles in the case I used was much shorter, and simpler, to notate than expressing it in metric. So that's what I used. "Significant figures", as you are describing them are not a mathematical term but an adjective for what you feel is relevant precision.

Rounding 3.4 miles to 5.5 km is off by over 7.7 feet. Happy? I rounded that just for you.I would probably accept 5.47 km in 3.4 miles as it's just shy of five inches difference. Though I'd be happier with 5.472.

"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

Working...