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 Re: Start open from the beginning (Score 1) 314

odf is good for collaboration...

Maybe, but it pales in comparison to cloud hosted collaboration suites. Which coincidentally, Office365 and Google Docs are. I don't know about the msft latest stuff but i'm a gdocs user and trying to collaborate on an offline copy of spreadsheet/text, regardless of the format, feels like stone age and does have extra overhead costs, too.

Comment Re:Sounds like an ad (Score 1) 314

Uh .. price, i.e. TCO is obviously the key decision factor for many users. It has to play a significant role for these decisions.
TFA is saying its cheaper to run MSFT products at large scale than the open source counterpart. Thats the news, its all about price.
Obviously its not a 'fair match', as TCO of cloud hosted product in this decade will very easily work out to be lower, but given a choice between the available options ..

Submission + - MIT researchers crushed Mars One team in a public debate->

savuporo writes: TheSpaceReview has a summary from last weeks public debate between MIT researchers and CEO Bas Lansdorp. The debate was titled “Is Mars One Feasible?” and focused on technical and financial feasibility of the plan, with Lansdorp trying to answer Sydney Do and Andrew Owens, graduate research fellows and Ph.D. candidates at MIT who published an an independent assessment on the project a year ago. The summary is pretty damning for Mars One.

If somebody was scoring this debate, giving a point for each well-supported argument, deducting a point for each weak one, and subtracting multiple points every time somebody conceded the other side’s argument, then Mars One lost it hands down. Not only did Barry Finger admit that MIT’s technical analysis and criticism was mostly right, but Lansdorp also admitted that their 12-year plan for landing humans to Mars by 2027 is mostly fiction. Furthermore, Lansdorp acknowledged that he pretty much twists the truth into a pretzel for potential investors when he tells them he knows how to do it and how much it will cost. He doesn’t have a clue.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 732

That kind of precision strike assumes you go undetected and will not be intercepted. The problem is that radars evolve faster than airframes nowadays. If you go read up on the recent F-35 news, there are reports about both Russian and Chinese being able to pick up each and every currently fielded 'stealth' jet.
Radar vs stealth is always going to be an arms race, but you can obviously deploy newer radars faster than jets. And also, in a contested airspace in a complex theater you might have radars sweeping at every angle - assuming you are not fighting goat herders, but then you don't need trillion dollar jets either.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 732

Guns are effectively a thing of the past in air combat.
Until your existing missiles are all rendered ineffective by some countermeasure, like directed energy point defense weapons.
It sounds sci-fi, but Russians were actually actively investigating capabilities of their AESA radars to electronically kill missiles like a decade ago. Doesn't mean something like that is feasible any time soon, but 'obsolete' and 'thing of the past' are claims of hubris and omniscience

Comment Re:To be fair (Score 1) 732

Shoot happened and failed, the 'scoot' part happened because Iraqis were obviously massively outnumbered. Only a lunatic would stay and try to take on 8 Eagles with a cannon.

The point is, BVR didnt work specifically against an old but agile adversary. Which means assertions that 'dogfighting is obsolete' should be questioned, and obviously, again - you do not always get to define the way you prefer to fight

Comment Re:To be fair (Score 1) 732

Did you read the link ?

Two engagements from these first days of the conflict are particularly interesting. In the first case, two IQAF MiG-25 interceptors were vectored onto a pair of USAF F-15 fighters. It was a successful interception and the Iraqis fired their missiles, though without effect. The two F-15s successfully evaded the attack and then turned to pursue. The high speed MiG-25s quickly outdistanced the trailing F-15s, who between them fired a total of ten air-to-air missiles at the Iraqis — also without success.

In a second case, a single Iraqi MiG-25 pilot near Tikrit managed to penetrate a defensive screen of two flights of four F-15 fighter planes each (a total of eight USAF fighter aircraft!) and then fire three missiles at an EF-111A Raven aircraft that was supporting an inbound strike package. The EF-111A Raven pilots were able to evade the missiles but had to break off their mission, which left the strike package without electronics countermeasures coverage for its mission. As with the other pair of MiG-25s, this third Iraqi MiG also outran the F-15s and recovered successfully to their base.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.