Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 786 786

Right but with what money? They've already dropped their order for 50 down to 12, and India whose money Russia is dependent on to run the programme have stopped even talking to Russia because they're so pissed off about Russia's failings on the development of this aircraft.

Russia can't afford to build more, hence why it's actually now planning to build less. India may well give up altogether.

There's nothing wrong with the F-22 and F-35's record. The PAK-FA already has a worse record than the F-35 as the PAK-FA to date has a 1 in 5 engine fire rate, vs. the F-35s 1 in 100. It looks even worse for the PAK-FA if you include flying hours. Similarly, the F-22 is now a successful and now even battle tested production aircraft whilst the PAK-FA is struggling to even stay off the ground because it's engine is far too underpowered.

Comment: Re:Burned Child (Score 1) 154 154

Don't tell me, you think "There is more than one way to skin a cat" is really used in reference to skinning cats, "Holy shit" is really a reference to the Pope's turd, and "Fucking hell" is really a reference to having sex with the underworld?

Believe it or not, other cultures have terms whose actual meanings don't tie up to their literal interpretations as well.

I don't think Linus is really comparing portable device drivers to the aftermath of an ISIS style execution of a small child or something.

Comment: Re:Now that was cool! (Score 1) 54 54

are you saying there exists some implementation that analyzes every resume in existence perfectly? it's "incomplete" in the sense that any such effort is incomplete and imperfect by nature of the problem. your criticism is invalid, you don't understand the task if you expect completeness is possible

Comment: Re:The project known as F-35 (Score 1) 786 786

"There hasn't been a dog fight between aircraft since Air-to-Air missiles such as the sidewinder appeared (IIRC it was around Vietnam that the last dog fight occurred)."

That isn't true, British Harriers shot down a number of aircraft in dog fights using cannon fire. Sea Harriers scored kills against at least one Pucara, two A-4 Skyhawks, a C-130 and a couple of helicopters in this way. You argue the helicopters, the C-130 and maybe even the Pucara at a stretch weren't really much of a dogfight, but if nothing else the Skyhawk engagements were.

I believe there were some later engagements too in the middle east in the late 80s and maybe even the 90s.

Though regardless I think your point still holds a lot of merit, even if dogfights do occur, they occur so rarely as to be a meaningless metric of the quality of a fighter over it's ability to shoot shit down with missiles.

Comment: Re:Fake signs (Score 4, Interesting) 133 133

It worked for Kansas, the band. As related by the band, when they were starting out they were to open for Aerosmith once. Steven Tyler had gotten a reputation for pulling the power cables to the amps if the opening band was doing too well, it might make Aerosmith look bad when they came on afterward. Kansas' stage manager had been informed of Tyler's antics, so he rigged up the amps to take power from the other side of the stage using hidden cables and put in fake cables to where all could see.

So Kansas goes on and kills, Kansas was very hot, tight band. During the set, Tyler is pacing the sideline backstage getting more and more incensed. Kansas does one encore, Tyler is livid. They do a second encore and Tyler loses his brain cell and rips out the fake cables, which only pissed him off more since that didn't stop Kansas. After that song, Dave Hope, Kansas' bass player, threw down his bass and went to over to explain to Tyler using very colorful language what he was doing wrong. Dave Hope was a big guy back then so it was very impressive. Afterwards, other members of Aerosmith apologized to Kansas for Tyler's behavior.

Comment: This is why (Score 0) 133 133

the death penalty is still needed. These acts aren't being done by some random, clueless junkie trying to sell copper to get their fix. The number and location shows someone, or someones, are deliberately cutting the fiber whether because they're t'rrists (unlikely), general vandals (possible) or some neo-luddite who thinks it's fun to screw around (possible).

As the article relates, the penalties aren't severe enough. Well guess what is. . .

Comment: Re:That's good (Score 1) 145 145

People aren't invoking the Streisand effect though, the amount of people whose names are more publicised relative to those who have personal data illegally held by data removed are negligible. This is working well for most people because if they came to you for a job interview and you Googled their name, you would find fuck all on them, which is kind of the point.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 786 786

I agree with you on other aircraft, but I don't really agree about the A-10, whilst the platform is built around the gun you don't bring it to a fight just because of it's gun. You bring it to a fight because it can blow up individual tanks with anti-tank missiles, slaughter multiple LAVs with bombs, and then spend the next 45 minutes gunning the hell out of any remaining troop transports and troops.

Yes, as air defences have improved it's become more reliant on needing support for air defence suppression, but the A-10s advantage is that it can loiter and stay on mission longer than an F-16 in terms of fuel, and longer than a drone in terms of firepower whilst being on target faster than an attack helicopter.

It still does what it was always meant to do well, and those close air support, if you've got ground troops flushing the enemy out of a forest, or a village then the A-10 can hang around long enough to help them do that, and to clean up anything trying to get away, whether it's a few troops, an APC, or a tank. It can also just obliterate any buildings that the enemy refuse to be budged from and are pinning down your ground forces from.

Again, an attack helicopter is ideal for this role, but it can't always get there quick enough, isn't always in range, and is typically more vulnerable. The A-10 is basically a kind of rapid response attack helicopter and is unmatched in that niche role. The fact it is a niche role means it could easily be dismissed as not worth the effort, but unfortunately it's the very niche that we've needed for 15 years now.

Quoting the 18% of sorties in Iraq/Afghanistan is a bit of an abuse of statistics too when you don't mention the fact that the A-10 is fewer in number than the other aircraft in the first place. Given that the US airforce has only 143 A-10s but about 300 F-15Es, 1200 F-16s, the Navy about 500 F-18s, the Marines 300 harriers and the air force/CIA around 500 - 700 Predator drones then I don't think 18% is too bad a figure for A-10s. These figures also don't include other NATO aircraft such as RAF Tornados and Typhoons. It seems likely that the A-10 was actually punching above it's weight numerically - it can't do more CAS missions if there just aren't enough A-10s to go around relative to other aircraft.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 786 786

"But a) they're only planning on buying 150 (and only 50 by 2020), while we already have 115 and will end up with 2,400+ and b) if the plan works dogfighting is irrelevant."

They're now only planning on buying 12 actually:


Yes. 12.

In practice, it's not much of a stretch to view it as anything other than a cancellation of the programme in everything but name.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.