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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Slashdot links to itself! See top of page. (Score 1) 67

Omg now Slashdot is doing it too! Right at the top of the page there are links to Slashdot and Dice's other pages and services. We should sue them for a hundred quadrillion dollars!

Yeah, that's how web pages work. They have links. A page on a company's site will primarily link to the company's other pages.

IF Bing, Yahoo, etc. didn't exist, and Google was virtually the only way to find web sites, THEN they would have a special position that would justify special laws. Since Bing is the DEFAULT search engine on Windows, Google isn't in a special position where they should be forced to promote Microsoft.

Comment we know she ruins what she runs (Score 4, Insightful) 81

Most people in tech, or business, know Fiorina as the person who ruined HP. So the lack of support for her may indicate that most people don't want the country ruined.

Well, they don't THINK they want it ruined, anyway. They may well be uninformed such that they advocate for policies which have been ruinous to countries and states which have tried them. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it and all.

Comment OFFER, acceptance, "consideration" (Score 2) 177

> I'm not a lawyer, but there's a big difference between an ad and a contract.
> A contract requires consideration: both parties must exchange something real for the contract to be valid.
> But an ad has no consideration (beyond wasting your time, etc.)... it's a 1-way offer.

The classic test for a contract is that a contract requires:
An offer
An acceptance
Consideration (deliver, pay or exchange, etc)*

You said "an ad has no consideration (beyond wasting your time, etc.)... it's a 1-way offer". Right, the ad is the offer.

When you walk into the store, point to the sign, and say "I'll take that plan", that's the acceptance.

When you pay the bill, that's exchange of consideration.

Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration. The ad is the "offer" part of the contract. If you accept the offer that's in the ad and you pay, without anything else happening, that's a contract.

Of course something else normally does happen before you pay (consideration). The provider normally whips out the FULL offer, the 12-page "contract" document. THAT is in effect a second offer, which you accept by signing and exchange consideration by paying. If the provider failed to present you with the 12-page contract offer, the ad would be only written part of the contract.

* Consideration has partly gone out the window as courts have ruled that SAYING you'll pay or deliver counts. Well the ad SAYS they'll deliver unlimited data. Part of accepting is saying "okay, I'll pay $35 for unlimited data", so there ya go. You're left with offer and acceptance, with no real exchange of actual consideration required.

Comment Have your cake and eat it too (Score 1) 348

> your right, the f-35 won't sit on the ground, it will engage in A2A. Then the troops won't have any air support, as it will get chewed up by the existing enemy jets.

There are enemy fighters in the area? Then you can't fly the A-10. At all. It does nothing but sit on the tarmac until the air is clear of enemy planes.

Comment MUZZLE velocity. Then drag happens, squared (Score 1) 348

The MUZZLE the velocity of the A-10 rounds are just below and just above 1000 m/s. Then the hit air and immediately start slowing down. At high velocities, drag is approximately proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, which means that an object loses most of it's velocity in the earliest portion of it's flight.

At the design range of 4,000 feet, the rounds will be traveling at somewhere around 200 m/s or so. My ballistics tables don't cover that exact round at that exact distance, so I'm extrapolating.

Comment and 50,000 is more than 6,000 (Score 1) 348

> The a-10 gun aims DOWN 2 degrees, so to shoot another aircraft it must be intentionally mis-aligned with the target.

That brings up an interesting point. In air-to-air combat, there is a huge advantage for a plane firing down at the other plane. The diving plane maintains speed and energy, while the lower plane, pointed upwards, is losing speed and energy. So you REALLY want to be able to get above your opponent.

The A-10 can climb 6,000 feet per minute. That's almost twice the climb rate of the Boeing 777, at 3,500 fpm. The F-16 can climb 50,000 fpm. Which aircraft do you think is going to end up on top, literally?

Comment at mach 2+ however, faster than the bullet at rang (Score 2) 348

I love how you said "at 1400 mph". I guess if the fighter slows down, and places it's engines 2 feet from the A-10's muzzle ...

Calculate the velocity of the gun round 2,000 feet down range, after it's encountered air resistance, and compare that to even a 1980s fighter like the F-16. The F-16 is literally faster than a speeding bullet.

Comment I thought so too (Score 1) 348

> The basic fact that you're forgetting is, a tool that is engineered for one specific purpose always performs that task or purpose better than some awkward multi-purpose tool.

A purpose-specific tool OFTEN does a better job. On the other hand, a Core i7 renders graphics far than 1970s area GPU.

> Let's assume that you are an electrician. You have a tool box with a couple dozen pairs of "pliers" in it. You have wire ststrippers in multiple sizes ...

I thought so too! Then I talked to my master electrician friend. It turns out that an electrician walks around the building with a tool BELT and there is one multi-purpose tool that is normally in his hand. It's a stripper/cutter/pliers that lets him strip and terminate a wire in seconds, in less time than it takes me to dig my strippers out of my tool box. It's kind of impressive to watch.

They come in basically two sizes - building wiring size and automotive wiring size. It turns out that a) switching tools costs more time than specialized tools gain and b) carrying a bunch of tools around all day costs time and energy.

Comment 24 is MORE than 16 (Score 1) 348

> Dude, you are so stupid... Try a A-10 on a simulator, is a very, very ninble aircraft.
A late model A-4 can turn at 16-18 degrees per second (but lose airspeed in the process).

An F-16 or MiG-29 could do about 24-26 deg/s. And has the power to weight ratio to keep doing it all day long.

In other words, in the time a fighter does a complete 180 degree turn, the A-10 will have turned only 120 degrees.

A semi truck is a useful thing to have. A semi is not a motorcycle.
An A-10 is a ussful thing to have. An A-10 is not a fighter.

Comment ps, jets are faster than A-10 bullets (Score 1) 348

The A-10 flies at about 420 MPH. Even 1980s fighter jets fly at mach 2, about the same speed as the bullets from the A-10 gun. An A-10 going after a fighter is literally the same ratio as a scooter going after a Ferrari.

Don't misunderstand, scooters are good. They are useless for chasing down sports cars, and an A-10 is just as useless for engaging enemy fighters. The fighters would (and do) fly by as if the A-10 is standing still.

> no known aircraft can survive the A-10's gun. It is the most powerful dogfight cannon

The bullets from the A-10's gun go about the same speed as the fighter. So if somehow, magically, the A-10 got on the fighter's tail and fired, the bullet probably couldn't catch up to the fighter. If it was fired off angle, it might hit the fighter at 30 MPH relative speed - not enough to dent the sheetmetal.

Survive that A-10s gun? No jet fighter in the last 40 years can be HIT by the A-10 gun unless the fighter is either a) parked or b) intentionally flying toward the A-10 without shooting it down.

Comment read your post. I understand you're a fan (Score 2) 348

I understand why you're a fan of the A-10. It's a good plane, the does what it's designed to do. Re-read what you just wrote:

> The A-10 has demonstrated devastating anti-aircraft ability as well, with at least one known air-to-air kill.

One kill. In decades. One. That's devastating capability? Once, a rubber band killed someone. Therefore a rubber band is a devastating weapon? Again, the A-10 is a good ground attack plane. It's not a fighter; it's not a bomber, it's not a frankfurter. It's a slow-flying ground attack plane that is very useful when you want to attack something small on the ground AND don't have to worry about any enemy planes shooting it down. It's utterly defenseless against virtually any aircraft armed with missiles, including 1970s and 1980s era Russian planes that are now owned by little tyrants around the world.

Comment pros and cons (Score 5, Insightful) 348

I suspect that as the article says, there will be pros and cons of each. Obviously the A-10 has been very successful in this role, while the F-35 benefits from decades of technology advancements.

The A-10 is robust. The F-35 gives the pilot a much better view the of entire situation. The A-10 can put a lot of fire down in a small area as it flies low and slow. The F-35 can start applying fire earlier, while it's still further away. The A-10 is a proven system that has stood the test of time. The F-35 doesn't have to run away when an old Russian surplus fighter is detected in the area.

I really like the A-10 and generally I appreciate systems that have stood the test of time - newer doesn't mean better (aka the fundamental belief that means I'm a conservative) .

ALSO, when improvements are made, when someone "does it better", that's also new. SOMETIMES the new thing IS better is significant ways. We'll see what happens in the testing.

The F-35 IS expensive _per_unit_. The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs. So the A-10 sits on the ground while there is air-to-air taking place, waiting while another aircraft handles that. IF the F-35 does four different roles, replacing four different types of aircraft, that cuts the effective cost by 75%. It wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies. It could, supposedly, when the skies while also bombing enemy airfields , then do close air support.

Let's see how it actually does in testing before we declare the result.

Comment Re:read the man page (Score 1) 723

> Do you think the ever more popular containers such as docker and openvas are also useless for security?

I rate them as "not proven". Now that lx containers can run as regular users, they are _intended_ to enforce some separation.
The purpose for the which chroot was designed was to avoid the need to set basedir in every makefile of a build system. It's a convenience feature roughly equivalent to
  ln -s /mnt/test/ /
Much like cd which internally looks like:
ln -s . /somewhere

LX containers are at least _supposed_ to be something more than a convenient shortcut.

Comment read the man page (Score 5, Informative) 723

> In short: I think chroot is plenty good for security

Check man chroot. The authors of chroot say it's useless for security.
Perhaps you think you know more than they do ,and more than security professionals like myself do. Let's find out.

> you get a shell in one of my chroot's used for security, then.....
ur uid and gid are not going to be 0. Good luck telling the kernel to try and get you out.
There aren't going to be any /dev, /proc, or other special filesystems

Gonna be kind of tthough to have a ahell without a tty, aka /dev/*tty*
So yeah, you need /dev. Can't launch a process, including /bin/ls, without /proc, so you're going to need proc. Have a look in /proc/1. You'll see a very interesting symlink there.

> mounted noexec

Noexec is basically a suggestion, not an enforement mechanism . Just run ld /path/to/executable. ld is the loader/lilinker for elf binaries. Without ld ,you can't run bash, or ls. With ld, noexec is ignored.

My company does IT security for banks. Meaning we show the banks how they can be hacked. When I say chroot is not a security control, I'm not guessing.

Byte your tongue.