Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Concorde 2.0 (Score 1) 238 238

According to this article it made money every time it flew, about 30 millions British Pounds a year, but it never recouped the development costs.

Wow, thirty million pounds (i.e. about $50M), really? Compared to how much BA makes in a year on subsonic traffic? I can't imagine why Concorde didn't get more support.

Comment Re:Concorde 2.0 (Score 1) 238 238

Concorde would have been a lot more successful if some US states hadn't banned it. Sour grapes because US companies couldn't develop their own supersonic passenger jets first, and weren't even really in the game by the time Concorde started flying.

This thing about "the US banning supersonic overflight" is getting tiresome. How many European countries allow supersonic overflight for commercial traffic? Why didn't Concorde run from Paris to, say, Athens or Riyadh or Dubai? I'll bet a lot of oil sheiks would have been happy to pay for Concorde flights to the Riviera or Amsterdam or wherever. This is not why the Concorde failed; it failed because it was thirsty and noisy and expensive to operate.

Comment Re: Concorde 2.0 (Score 1) 238 238

I don't think the US has any hypersonic AAM's at this point. The AIM-54 Phoenix was a long range mach 5 missile, but has been retired along with the F-14. The AIM-120 AMRAAM and current AIM-7 Sparrows are mach 4.

Which is plenty fast enough to catch a Concorde, never mind this new plane that can't even reach Mach 2. So quit picking at nits.

Comment Re:Concorde 2.0 (Score 1) 238 238

Cars with the throttle body carburetor of the late 70s and early 80s get better gas mileage than todays hybrids although they couldn't pass an emissions test.

Those cars, e.g. Rabbit Diesel or Honda Civic CVCC, didn't get good mileage because they had crappy old carburetors (or throttle body injection in the case of diesels). They got good mileage because they were tiny little crapboxes made of tinfoil that weighed nothing, still couldn't get out their own way despite being so light, and were about a tenth as safe as modern cars.

Comment Re:Concorde 2.0 (Score 1) 238 238

Yeah but it is American, so there's hope for it given that one of they key reasons Concorde failed is American jealousy at the successful design and development of it meant they made life commercially impossible for it to exist.

Oh, really? And just how did "they" (who's "they", BTW) do that?

Comment Re:Good for greece (Score 1) 1307 1307

According to the Greek labor minister, 75% of Greeks retire before age 61. Pensions comprise 17% of Greece's GDP.

“In the public sector, 7.91% of pensioners retire between the ages of 26 and 50, 23.64% between 51 and 55, and 43.53% between 56 and 61. In IKA, 4.44% of pensioners retire between the ages of 26 and 50, 12.83% retire between 51 and 55, and 58.61% retire between 56 and 61. Meanwhile, in the so-called healthy funds, 91.6% of people retire before the national retirement age limit,” [labor minister] Vroutsis said.

Comment Re: Good for greece (Score 1) 1307 1307

Greece will stay in Europe and the euro but start the process of fixing the euro so that it works for the piigs too.

And what do you think that would look like? How was one currency ever supposed to work for both the PIIGs and Germany/France at the same time, without the latter constantly having to carry the former along?

Comment Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way (Score 1) 1032 1032

Higher education doesn't have to be about making money, but government and taxpayers paying for higher education ought to be. If you want to blow your rich daddy's money on a medieval basketweaving degree, that's fine. But the point of government-funded education ought to be to increase the tax base with higher-paying jobs, to pay back the money spent on the education. Why should you be entitled to a non-productive fluff degree at my tax expense?

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.