Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Not news (Score 1) 229

we are the cause of most species going extinct in the modern era.
natural extinction is longer drawn out process. even the extinction of the dinosaurs took a few thousand years.
and in that process they are frequently replaced, or the beginings of a replacement, by a new critter on the rise, or other critters filling in, or whatever equilibrium ends up being reached.

but therein lies the problem. not only are WE the cause, we are doing it far faster than nature can cope and adapt.

and we're not really an apex predator either. in nature if lions or wolves eat too many critters, they face starvation the next year, and their numbers drop. in the following cycle, now the prey multiplies. now with a surplus of food the predator numbers once again rebound. the cycle swings like this naturally every so often.

we, humans, no longer see or partake in that natual predator and pry boom/bust cycle.

if we wipe out all the fish in the sea, oh well, there's plenty of other stuff we can eat. in fact that's WHY we're not apex predators. we're omnivores, with very adaptable diets. but that omnivorous diet coupled with our ability to adapt and grow as a species (such that we're now the only sentient one here, and the single most numourous outside of insects and some fish) is even vastly different than other adaptable species. if we eat all the fish in the sea or some "local" area, for nearly concept or size of local, we barely feel it because we can ship in rice from asia, or corn from nebraska, or beef from australia.

we are so disconnected from the natural cycles that the comparison to apex predators is completely unjustified.

Comment: Re:Stop insulting scumbags. (Score 5, Insightful) 167

except most of these laws come from republican controlled state legislatures.

Oh, you want a local internet utility to compete with your shoddy telco monopoly? Can't allow that.
Oh, you want a local minimum wage higher than the state or federal minimum? Can't allow that.
Oh, you want a local employment non-discrimination law? Can't allow that.
Oh, you want any of a dozen other topics we oppose as a local level? Can't allow that.

Welcome to the The GOP: the party of small government, handling things that lowest or local level...unless we oppose it.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 2) 260

they're working that way.

The military said climate change was an emerging national security threat, as place will experience more frequent and more extreme droughts or other catastrophic weather events. This will in turn lead to increased conlfict, for which they wanted to study and prepare for.

GOP reaction? To specifically prohibit, by law, the military from continuing to study or prepare for anything related to global warming.
Remember, this the "national security" party. That's how much they hate global warming, that they will willingly hamper our military readiness.

The same GOP has now done the same to the DOE. They also are doing it to the EPA, who they are trying to stop from even doing their most basic job, enforcing the Clean Air and Clean waters (because clean air and water are obviously just liberal plots...)

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 260

Scientists just relate the facts.
Those facts threaten Republicans in particular, but also any politicians from coal/oil states.

But they are still facts.
Choosing to ignore tham once told them is NOT the scientists taking sides.
The DOE examining the greatest threat to continued human existence is not taking sides.

You are an idiot.

Comment: Re:If this helmet is that great (Score 1) 176

by dywolf (#47530069) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

that is the eventual goal, and the helmet probably should have been its own development project.

that said, just "adding" something to existing airframes is difficult. unless you've worked on planes, you probably have no idea just how cramped for space they are internally with all the avionics boxes and wiring (miles and miles of wiring)

Comment: Re:I'm curious (Score 1) 176

by dywolf (#47530057) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

The F104 wasnt designed for ground attack, or to replace 5 different aircraft.
It also wasnt designed for manueverability or air superiority, nor did it have much in the way of avionics.
It was a pure zoom climb interceptor, heance the extreme top speed.
It's nickname of the Manned Missile is entirely accurate.

Comparing the 104 to the 35 is like comparing a $500,000 Ferrari with all the bells and whistles to a $1000 VW Bug that's had a rocket strapped on the back.
(and being slower than the 104 really isnt relevant to anything...lots of perfectly capable modern fighters are)

Comment: Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies (Score 1) 176

by dywolf (#47530033) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

even if those numbers were true the F22 and F35 have been designed with the capability to track and engage extremely large numbers are enemy aircraft. the probably of them being swarmed by even half that number are slim to none as the mission doctrine is to engage from maximum range long before being detected, reducing the enemy numbers before they even know they are being hunted.

the F22 alone is publicly capable of carrying 6 AAMRAMs and 2 Sidewinders. the AAMRAMs would be fired off first as the distance is closed leaving 6 aircraft to deal with, 4 if the Sidewinders are launched on the way in as well. The maneuverability of the F22, combined with the computers ability to maintain tracking of the enemy fighters make the F22 absolutely lethal in a gunfight. 4 on one and even 6 on one is not much of a threat for our current fighters as it is, unless flown against a comparable nation (EF2000s, Rafales, etc), and the F22 outperforms our current jets considerably.The F35 is similarly overdesigned.

Simple fact is that a flight four F22/35's, a typical flight size, could engage and destroy as many 24 enemy fighters from long range alone, long before they even knew they were there. That's two entire air squadrons of aircraft. If you want to include mopping up some additional jets with guns, say 1 or 2 each, that's now 28 or 32 aircraft destroyed. So now 3 squadrons decimated. Those are numbers you simply unlikely to even see fielded by a potential enemy in modern air combat. Those numbers are only potentially likely in a WW3 scenario, and even that's unlikely considering how many ways we have to cripple aircraft on the ground.

There simply is no longer any scenario in which we do NOT have complete air dominance over any enemy country.

Comment: Re:Outstanding... (Score 1) 176

by dywolf (#47529929) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

the aircraft is functional with several squadrons already stood up and operating. the mechs are already training in how to maintain it. pilots are already running training missions to become proficient.

the helmet is not required to operate the aircraft, and in many ways should have been its own research and development project, simply because of its own complexity. but once completed the helmet and its systems oan be retrofitted to most any aircraft dramatically increasing pilot capability and awareness.

there is no doubt the aircraft is WAY over due, and WAY overcost. and IMO they tried to do too much too fast, and were far too lenient with the manufacturer basically turning it into a jobs program for the past decade and a half.

But it's still one helluva beautiful and capable plane, regardless of the opinions uninformed and ignorant slashdotters who dont live and work within that community.

Comment: Re:so one billionaire (Score 1) 62

by dywolf (#47514557) Attached to: Rupert Murdoch's Quest To Buy Time Warner: Not Done Yet

Not as small as you make it out to be. You may not think it that big, but you have to remember that Comcast is not only one of the Big 6 (who own nearly all media/entertainment), but it's also the biggest of the 6. By a lot. It has over 157billion in revenues compared to the next largest, Disney, at "only" 36 billion. It got that big very much as a result of melding one of the biggest of the 6 already (NBC Universal and largely owned by GE) with the largest cable/telco company, Comcast. And that has absolutely allowed them to leverage their vertical integration into a true behemoth.

The others are Fox, Time Warner, CBS, and Viacom.
And let's not forget the original summary is talking precisely about Fox acquiring Time Warner.
And Comcast is currently trying to acquire Time Warner Cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Universal of course is one of the big studios, who also owns Focus Pictures, Working Title, and Illumination.
That's a decent amount of movies coming out of them every year.

NBC itself of course, a major network who also broadcasts a lot of sport events (and specials like the Superbowl, Olymics, World Cup, etc). And being broadcast, its available in every home across the nation through the affiliates across the country. Just cannot underestimate the power of the big broadcast networks; the performance difference between them and cable (and ratings differences and expectations) is just huge.

Comcast sports, NBC sports, and the golf channel. Comcast not so much, but the other two are pretty popular. and while NBC and ESPN frequently share broadcast rights for many sporting eventing (or split them as with World Cup), NBC just recently secured the rights to NASCAR for something like the next 10 years. (no i dont really get the attraction either, but it is a big performer in ratings)

On cable you get E!, Syfy, USA, Bravo, Oxygen, Telemundo, mun2, NBC News, CNBC, MSNBC. More as well, but those ones have solid markets. 3 major news networks, 4 channels of original shows, and 2 channels of essentially reality tv (hate that stuff, but it is low cost high profit). And of course Telemundo, one of the bigger hispanic channels, and like most hispanic TV flies under most peoples radars so they dont realize it, but its also a very profitable market.

And of course part ownership of Hulu on the net...where their primary partners are Fox and Disney/ABC (whom they've tried to buy before).

Comment: Re:so one billionaire (Score 1) 62

by dywolf (#47506913) Attached to: Rupert Murdoch's Quest To Buy Time Warner: Not Done Yet

you are right...but Comcast loves to acquire content creators.
thus the next logical step is of course for the two potential behemoths to merge. especially once he Foxifies CNN and HLN. just imagine how awful Comcast/TWC + Murdoch's empire w/TW would be...

bad enough that half of Fox stories right now quote other Murdoch brands like the NYPost or WSJ in order to give stories the credibility of repetition (once it was a WSJ article quoting Fox quoting the NYPost....). Now add even more media outlets to the mix? plus the threat of the internet side simply blocking any competeing news sources? talk about the potential to control all thought and discourse.

as a purely hypothetical and while extremely unlikely, its still nightmarish (and a great reason to sto these insane megamergers).

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...