Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Wrong way around (Score 5, Insightful) 714

The questioner has it the wrong way around.

The systemd team didn't create those dependencies, the DE maintainers did. All of these DEs ran just fine without systemd and they still could if someone was interested in doing so. In fact given the maturity of the old interfaces, and the code already existing in previous releases it should be much easier to maintain say, KDE or Gnome, without systemd that it is for the team trying to add it in. There is nothing stopping people from forking the existing code and running their own project, we have seen this happen in the open-source world dozens of times. If there is a lot of demand for systemd less distros, the community will make them.

The question isn't "Will You Be Able To Run a Modern Desktop Environment In 2016 Without Systemd?". The question is "Where are all the systemd-free projects?".

Linus said talk is cheap show me the code. So where is it? For all the complaining, flamewars, and cries of fleeing to *BSD you would expect systemd-free projects to be springing up left and right. So where are they? If Red Hat is making such a huge mistake switching to systemd, then surely their competitors at SUSE, Cannonical, and Mandriva will capitalize on that mistake in the name of profits no? It isn't surprising that seemingly everyone is adopting systemd. systemd is solving problems and implementing feature that people want. That is easy to explain.

What is remarkable here is the massive disconnect between the amount of outcry about systemd and the amount of code being written to avoid it.

Comment Berlin Wall Take 2 (Score 3, Insightful) 674

Haven't we already played this game?

After WWII the West and the Soviets split Germany. East Germany has socialism, where everyone's needs were provided for. West Germany had a capitalist system, where people got what they worked for. Well it didn't take long for people working in the East to figure out that they could do much better in the West, so they left. Yes, some of it was politics, yes some of it was about freedom. But the Berlin Wall wasn't built to stop political activists, pensioners, university students, or those in need of longterm care from fleeing. It was to stop professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. The drain of those with the largest net contribution to society was crippling the East German economy. So they built a wall to stop them. It's not an accident that most socialist countries enforce(d) exit visas.

Here in Canada we already enjoy a brain drain of our medical professionals. Why stay in Canada with lower incomes and higher taxes, when you can jump across the boarder and make out so much better. And I predict that Finland will see the same thing. Many Fins already speak Swedish and English so the barrier to exit is low. If you are a high paid professional why lose a huge chunk of your income to those who don't work when you can leave via the Schengen agreement.

Now might say that it won't cost extra because we will cut funding in other programs. Well that's bullshit. But don't take my word for it, or the media's word for it, sit down and do the math yourself. Basic income that provides any meaningful level of income is crazy expensive, well beyond what a few cuts here and there is going to cover.

You might say that only a few people care enough about higher taxes to leave. And you would be right. The problem is that it is the people who pay the most taxes who are going to leave. And when they leave the tax burden on those who stay goes up. Which creates more incentive for people to leave. It's a vicious cycle where the highest taxed leave and the next highest tax bare the burden.

I'll leave you with a thought experiment. Let say a nice liberal state like Vermont decided it's going to implement basic income, but no other state in the union follows suite. What do you think would happen?

Comment Re:We've already got TWO (Score 1) 237

Well for starters the B-2 isn't going to be replaced by the LSB, only the B-52 and B-1B are. The B-2 will be replaced by a new bomber design sometime around 2037, but that is ways off. More B-2s won't be built because they are expensive, and after 20 years the state of the art has changed a lot.

The B-1B was designed to defeat Soviet radar by flying low and fast. We now know that this won't work against a modern air defence systems that know how to deal with ground clutter. While at present only the big boys have these radars over the next 15 years Russia will be exporting them all over the world. Further the fast-and-low is hard on the airframe and hard on the engines. Making the B-1B expensive to operate and short on lifespan. By 2030 the B-1Bs are going to be almost 50 years old and at the end of their lifespan. So you either spend a lot of money extending the life of an old plane with an outdated mission, or you spend a lot of money on something modern.

The B-52 is a dinosaur and the USAF keeps flying it because they've never gotten the money to replace it. By 2030 those airframe will have no life left in them. And the B-52 has been outdated since what? The 80s or 90s? The USAF has extend its life by using it as a missile truck, but it can't bomb targets in contested airspace. They use it because that is what they have.

Comment Cash Cow (Score 1) 307

The problem is that a lot of studios are trying to produce cash cows, and audiences aren't buying it.

These shows establish a basic over arching story that people are actually interested in. But spend 90% of the show with monster of the week crap that no one is interested in. With the goal being of milking the show for as long as possible. With two predictable results: Most shows are just garbage that never pick up a fan base and die after a season or two. While a handful shows get lucky and they milk it for years until the audience gets pissed off.

Studios need to start producing shows that are designed to end. Stop producing comic-book style never ending stories, and start producing long movies. Shows like Dexter and Battlestar Galactica had amazing ideas in them, but the writers just lurched from season to season trying to keep the things afloat. There needs to be a story with a fixed end point, and once the show gets there it ends and that talent moves on to something else. I'd much rather watch a bunch of long-miniseries type shows like Rome, Band of Brothers, Sherlock, Jekyll, Babylon 5, etc. That are designed to end. Than all these shows that just milk a good idea to death.

Comment Re:hmmmm (Score 2) 502

It's a test the F-35 will win easily.

Back in 1991 the A-10 had to be pulled off attacks on the Republican Guard and given a blanket lower flight deck because they were getting shot down. Think about that. The air defences of a 3rd world dictatorship bested the A-10 almost 25 years ago. The replacement were F-16s using precision weapons and a new method called 'tank plinking'. The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 ever since. Its an aircraft designed for killing tanks, but it haven't been able to do that job in decades.

Even during the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the strike were being done by F-16s and F-18s. Multirole aircraft like the F-16 and F-18 plus drones have already replace the A-10. Congress just doesn't want to do that for political reasons. Not because of cost or effectiveness.

Comment Re:didn't happen in Manitoba (Score 5, Insightful) 755

Tried and abandoned.

There were a number of problems with the Dauphin study. The biggest being that it wasn't sustainable.

To be viable economic policy needs to work in a closed system. The money given out through mincome needs to be matched by the money coming in through taxes. But the Dauphin system didn't work like that. Instead, the government pumped in outside money, without raising taxes to offset. So the people living in Dauphin got all benefits of socialist style government handouts, without the accompanying higher tax rate.

No one doubts that many thing improved during the experiment. Improving the quality of life in a small community by pumping in free money from the outside is easy. The hard part is making it work as a system.

Comment Re:US airpower (Score 1) 732

According to:

The US lost 25 aircraft during the war in 1991:
1 was shot down by a MiG-25.
1 where the cause was not specified.
10 Shot down by ground fire.
14 Shot down by surface to air missiles.

The whole dogfighting with the gun thing is silly. The US has lost more aircraft to friendly fire than the guns of an enemy fighger.

Comment Hack Job (Score 1) 732

Oh look another F-35 hatchet job.

First, they compare the Su-27/35 which was designed specifically for air to air combat. While the F-35 was designed as a strike aircraft, with air-to-air as a secondary role. Then they limit the comparison to dogfighting, where the Su-27 family is legendary, and the F-35 is known to be weak. They do this despite dogfighting being extremely rare in recent history. They discount the use of high off bore missiles, despite both planes having it and the technology being decades old. And the conclusion is that the F-35 is garbage?

Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 with high off-bore missiles (which they both have)? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 on BVR combat? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 on ground attack missions? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 when operating under threat of SAMs? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 as an electronic warfare platform? Because the F-35 would win.

They've they chosen to compare aircraft designed for dissimilar roles in an extremely unlikely scenario that just so happens to give every possible advantage to the F-35 adversary. And make the jump that since the F-35 doesn't compare well on this one contrived situation that the whole F-35 program is a disaster.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

Comment Re:Waste of Time vs Waste of Money (Score 2) 154

Hundreds of billions wasted on the F-35? Are you serious?

The whole program over it's 50 year life span is expected to cost $1T. The expected cost is about $600B for maintenance training, etc. About $250B for actually buying all ~2,000 planes. And about $150B for development. Even if the the whole development of the F-35 was a waste and all 100 or so planes already built were dumped in the scrap heap it still wouldn't amount to "hundreds of billions".

I understand some people don't like the F-35, but the hyperbole has gotten way out of control.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 3) 452

Cry babies my ass. I suppose people complaining about slashdot beta where cry babies too? How about Digg?

Whatever happened to keeping the customer happy? Reddit is a social media site, the users are the customers, and they are not happy. The entire premise of reddit is bring in the users to generate ad revenue. Along comes Pao who and pisses off a massive segment of the userbase. I doesn't matter if you like them or agree with them, if that is your audience your job is to keep them happy.

Pao's problem isn't that she made a mistake. The problem is she doesn't know how to use the site (for real she doesn't) and doesn't get the concept of user generated content. I mean reddit bills itself as the front page of the internet, so where do you go to get the news about her apology? Time. She apologized on national media before doing it on the very site she is supposed to be promoting, that's just clueless.

She is a terrible CEO and if reddits board had any brains they would fire her immediately.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 4, Informative) 843

It sounds crazy because that isn't the whole story.

The F-35 comes in three variants, A for Air Force, B for Marines, and C for Navy. They are all variations on the same theme. The A is the base model. The B is pretty much the same as A but swaps out one of it's fuel tanks for a lift fan. The C is bigger version of A with folding wings, bigger wings are needed to have lower take off and landing speeds for carriers. Sharing a common platform save megabucks on all the radars, radios, FLIRs, fancy electronics, and the massive amount of software that needs to be written. It also gives them all a common engine, cockpit, and ejection system, which makes keeping spares on hand easier.

The F-35B replaces the Harrier because the Harrier is ancient and being better than it is a low bar to meet.

The F-35A replaces the F-16 by having stealth and a useful range. The F-16 was designed as a point defence fighter to defend against the Soviets over Germany, short range meant that it could be small, light, and manoeuvrable. Here are the typical combat ranges for the various fighters: F15C: 1,967 km, F-35A: 1,135 km, F-22: 760 km, F-18: 740 km, F-16: 550 km. The secret to the F-16's manoeuvrability is that they ditched a lot of fuel weight. The problem is the Soviet Union collapsed and the point defence mission disappeared. 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.

The F-18A/C has the same problems as the F-16. So it is being replaced by two fighters, the F-18E/F Super Hornet for air superiority, and the F-35C for attack missions.

The A-10 is basically a plane without a mission. It was designed in the days before precision weapons when the only way to hit tanks was to strafe them WWII style. That means low and slow, which means it needed to be armoured against AA. Great, except the Soviets simply upped the AA from 23mm to 30mm, introduced their version of the Stinger called Igla, and added more armour to the roof of their tanks. By the late 80s the A-10 was a death trap, fly low and Soviet AA will kill it, fly medium and Igla will kill it, fly at normal hight and you can't aim. And even if you could aim it's questionable if the GAU could still disable most recent Soviet tanks. The final nail in the coffin is the Soviet Union collapsing. There are no hordes of tanks for the A-10 to kill so what good is it? Against even a moderate air defence network it can't survive, which is why it had to be pulled off attacks against Republican Guard in the Second Gulf War, too many were shot down. Against a unsophisticated enemy like an insurgency it is too expensive, if the enemy can't shoot you down send a drone. The done is more accurate, cheaper, longer loiter time, and can provide video feeds to ground commanders. During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the A-10 only provided something like 18% of the CAS missions, far less than the F-16s or F-18s. The USAF used the A-10s because they have them, but they don't want them.

The F-35 can replace all of those planes because one was hopelessly out dated. One had already lost its mission to the remaining two. The final two work okay, so the F-35 was designed as a upgraded version of them with better range, better sensors, and stealth.

Comment War is Boring is shit (Score 4, Interesting) 843

Oh look, another F-35 hack job by David Axe from War is Boring. Maybe if he wasn't so consistently full of shit, or actually had a source to quote I'd bother to read his blog.

First, it's a strike fighter, why the fuck are people getting so worked up about dog-fighting? You know that these planes are not yet rated for their full flight envelope, or you would if Axe did his job. You would also know that the F-35 has more than twice the range of the F-16. Imagine that, a strike fighter that carrier more weight in fuel than point defence fighter. It's almost like dog-fighting wasn't the primary design goal. You know what else can't dogfight? The A-10 that guys like Axe are always furiously masturbating over.

Second, this isn't the 1970s. Sure dogfights may happen, but a hell of a lot less than BVR attacks and SAMs. And before anyone starts talking about Vietnam, go look at the numbers for that war. The little blurb you got about F-4 Phantom from watching Top Gun is wrong. For every plane lost in a dogfight, two were lost to AA missiles, and five were lost to SAMs, in the fucking 70s. Lord knows the world hasn't had any other conflicts since then from which to draw lessons.

Third, it's the most expensive plane program in history at $1T? No shit, the program is to build and maintain almost 3,000 fighters over 50 years. In fact is "almost" as expensive as the $3T to keep doing what we are doing: pumping out a half dozen different air frames with no common supply chain so that each one can be good at exactly one mission. But if you still think it is too expensive, I have to ask, compared to what? The F-22? Not even close. The Eurofighter? Lol. Russia's latest vaporware? Sure if they ever build more than some prototypes. Some last generation platform with no stealth? Sure that will make a great strike platform against an air defence system in contested air space. The money you save on a "cheap" F-16 Block 60s at $70 million vs an F-35A at ~$85-90 million, won't even cover the cost of all the extra shit you have to attach to it to F-16 to get the same performance.

These endless hack jobs on the F-35 project need to stop. This isn't 2008, we have over 100 of these things flying already. They are a mostly known quantity, and they greatly out perform the systems they are going to replace.

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson