Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment: Re:Chicken Little (Score 1) 261 261

So you DO trust statements that have been repeatedly refuted?

Interesting.

Most people (includign myself) tend to distrust in assertions that have been previosuly refuted, and further, to distrust organisations/groups who make those assertions repeatedly, after they have already been refuted. Take climate denialists for example. They claim that during the 1970's claims about Global Cooling dominated climate discussion, much as AGW has since the 1980's. But that claim ahs been shown to be ridiculous.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Then they claimed that the climate was not actually warming. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but due to solar variation. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but for reasons unknown, nobody knows why or could ever know, it's impossible to know. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because mumble mumble CONSPIRACY. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because models something something. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.

Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.

Should I go on?

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 1) 815 815

The Super Tucano for example. A modernized Bronco would also have been useful.

You would not have the 30mm penis extender, true, but instead you get a lower stall-speed, better combat radius, each plane is cheaper to build, own and run, less noisy, FAR better avionics, simpler maintenance, requiring fewer service hours, and the pilot has better visibility.

The lower stall speed is important because that allows you to target and lay down fire more accurately, the improved visibility for the pilot lets you pick out targets more easily and reduce the risk of friendly fire etc.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 2) 815 815

But for every situation where the A-10 has done "well", there have been cheaper, more easily maintained options, with better time-on-station. Also, with better night operations capabilities etc. In a situation like Syria, the A-10 would have been outmatched, and the syrian conflict hasn't exactly involved state-of-the-art anti-air assets.

Most of the love for the A-10 is just wanking over the gun, and that just gets in the way of reasonable decisions.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 1) 815 815

The A-10 is useless if you fight an opponent that has 80's or more modern anti-air weapons, and don't even think about flying it when you don't have air superiority. The SU-25 has served as an excellent example of what happens when you go up against an opponent with decent anti-air capabilities: CAS planes like A-10 and SU-25 are hopelessly outmatched

Comment: Re:Aww hell. (Score 2) 177 177

>People tend to be quite attached to their arms.

Well, at least until the accident...

In reality though, most rides these days seem to go out of their way to make sure that there's nothing actually dangerous within reach of anyone in the cars. Even if you slip out of your seat and stand up, etc. Sure, you'd have to be a grade-A dumbass to do such a thing, but even grade-A dumbasses getting themselves dismembered on your ride tends to make or bad publicity.

Comment: Re:Operating in Africa (Score 3, Insightful) 24 24

Probably also a generation or two of "we're here to help" medical programs not being hideously abused, as was done in various population-control endeavours and other programs. Involuntary sterilization under the guise of vaccinations? Really? That's the sort of horror story that can take generations to fade, and it seems like every time we start building back some trust among the population, someone decides to abuse it yet again.

Comment: Re: Are we asking a question? (Score 1) 210 210

Software failures will scale up similarly. If you propose for example that, on any single PC, a Linux crash is 10x more likely than a hardware failure, then they're be dealing with dozens of crashes per day - and that would have to be some pretty stable software. What's your crash to hardware-failure ratio?

Comment: Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1082 1082

The states do have wide autonomy to govern themselves. However, they do not have the right to treat some citizens differently than others with respect to rights enacted under state law, because this is expressly forbidden by the 14th Amendment. Laws written by legislatures that conflict with the 14th Amendment are invalid and unconstitutional. The thing that's bizarre about Scalia's dissent is his utter inability to get past his own prejudices, even in the face of a very clearly worded Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings that used the exact same argument.

Comment: Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 2) 1082 1082

If the state establishes a marriage right, it is established by the state on behalf of the people, and it is through the peoples' will that this right comes into existence. The 14th amendment simply says that if some citizens have this newly established right, then all citizens must have it. The state can't grant some rights only to a subset of its citizens.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...