Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 804 804

So for $1 Trillion, we can maybe step up part of the now-more-limited capability (loss of A-10 capability, smaller number of aircraft requiring longer maintenance intervals between sorties) air campaign? Maybe? And we're doing this because our elected officials have constructed a system of perverse incentives that discourages efficiency and competence and encourages ludicrous waste?

(None of this being news to me, just confirming we're on the same page; in which case we're talking about two different things. I'm speaking of what ought to happen in a sane, sensible world and you're speaking of what will actually happen because unrestricted representative democracy has yielded idiocy, incompetence, and impotence at the top.)

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 804 804

a) None of those are stealth.

The F-22 is (in fact it has better stealth than the JSF) and so is the B-2 (also has better stealth than the JSF, but you called it out in your other reply so we'll let that one slide).

The others don't need stealth to fulfill their respective roles.

b) None of those can fulfill the roles of any of the others.

Correct. The F-22 is extremely stealthy and will clear our whatever aircraft the enemy puts in the skies. It also has limited ground strike capability, but that's a real waste. The B-2 (also extremely stealthy, possibly more than the F-22) is then clear to come in and start really pounding ground defenses. You take out all the stationary radar, SAM sites, AAA, C&C, etc with that while the F-22 provides protection. You don't risk lucky shots against your B-2s by sending them after less heavily defended targets; you just use them to clear a path for your remaining forces so they don't face anti-air defenses.

Once all appreciable anti-air has been destroyed and the enemy can't put a plane in the sky without F-22s dropping it, you're free to send in your non-stealth aircraft. F-16s bomb the Hell out of stationary targets and can provide some target-of-opportunity strike capability. A-10s take out mobile infantry, supply convoys, etc. AC-130s and A-10s provide your close-in air support for whatever ground missions you need to complete your objectives. Each has its own distinct role to play; one thing it's great at doing. Used together, you get the best of all worlds.

c) They're all old designs that don't look good on a budget request.

Depends on what you mean by "doesn't look good on a budget request". As a taxpayer, they sure as Hell look good to me. They're much cheaper than JSFs and each is much more capable at the specific job it's intended to do. Those "old designs" have all the bugs worked out of them and are reliable as can be. And when one does break down, it costs peanuts to repair or replace it. If the folks in charge of the budget don't think that looks good, we need to fire them immediately.

d) Particularly a $1 Trillion request.

We could buy so many of those things for $1 Trillion that we wouldn't have pilots to fly them all. So we'd buy a few less than that and train enough pilots to fly them. The result would be a force so large that we could run dozens of simultaneous sorties 24/7/365 and overwhelm anyone anywhere with omnipresent force.

So we'll have a very expensive plane that does nothing particularly well, but we'll have a lot of them, and against almost any opponent we're likely to face it will be literally invincible because getting through stealth (even the Gen 1 Stealth of the F-117) is a lot harder then it looks in a Navy white paper.

Actually, getting through stealth isn't that bad when using low-frequency ground based radar. Getting through it in the air is a challenge. That's why the advanced stealth of the F-22 and the B-2 are a much better fit for early combat: they'll have vastly better survivability than the JSF. For later in the campaign - when the enemy no longer has effective anti-air defenses - there's no reason to fly significant amounts of costly aircraft sorties. At that point, you want to fly legions of cheap, effective aircraft in and pin down the enemy so they can't so much as glance out from under the rocks they're hiding under without JDAMs raining down on them from all directions.

Comment: Re:Venutians vs Martians (Score 1) 237 237

If some guy is born one day with red eyes that let him see through the clouds and hair all over his face that protects him from the things in the atmosphere then that's going to be for nothing if no woman wants to have his kids.

Given the pairings I've been seeing lately, that shouldn't be a problem.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 804 804

Sorry, what debacle with the F-22? Near as anyone can tell, it's the best air superiority fighter ever built and will be for the next 15 - 20+ years. Do they cost a lot? Yes. But don't compare the cost of opposing military aircraft to the cost of the F-22. Compare the cost of opposing military aircraft to the cost of the AIM-120 AMRAAM fitted to the F-22 because the first indication the opposing pilots are going to have that F-22s are in the area is a missile warning.

The Iranians experienced this already when they decided to send up planes to harass some US drone aircraft. The US sent an F-22 up and after the F-22 pilot got bored waiting for the Iranians to notice he was there, he radioed them to get out of his airspace.

"He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home.'" http://www.military.com/daily-...

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me." http://www.acc.af.mil/news/sto...

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 804 804

The F-22 isn't supposed to be dogfighting. The F-22 is supposed to blow the enemy out of the sky from BVR long before the enemy knows F-22s are in the air. That's why it was always so stupid to compare the fly-away cost of a new F-22 to the fly-away cost of other nations' aircraft. The real comparison is the fly-away cost of other nations' aircraft against the cost of the AIM-120 AMRAAM fitted to the F-22 that's going to blow their aircraft away.

If you have F-22s dogfighting with anyone, something has gone horribly wrong.

And the JSF is a flying pile of horse shit. We'd have been much better off building new F-16s, A-10s, and AC-130s. Let the F-22s own the skies, let the B-2s take out the nastiest air defenses, and then let all the cheap stuff fly in and mop up whatever's left on the ground. I don't know what the Hell problem the JSF is supposed to solve. If the problem were just that the US military has way too much money laying around, we'd simply build more F-22s, B-2s, and carriers. Obviously that's not the problem, so what the Hell is the JSF?

Comment: Re:The founding documents present a path... (Score 1) 161 161

I am also unarmed.

Whose fault is that? Pick up something used and cheap. Start interacting with local firearms communities and someone will probably give you something if you're that bad off and then take you to the range to show you how to use it. "I am unarmed" is the battle cry of those who've long laughed at the Second Amendment. If that's you, fine; stop laughing and get involved in some communities.

Comment: It would give them control of monetary policy (Score 1, Insightful) 358 358

Part of the issue in the Eurozone is that countries have control of fiscal policy, as in how money is spent and taxes collected, but not monetary policy, as in how much money is supplied and to where.

While monetary policy doesn't let you magic your way out of any situation (see Zimbawbe for an example) it can be useful. Have a currency that is weak or strong isn't inherently good and bad, but rather useful in different ways. So one country might wish to have a weaker currency, another a stronger one. Also it can allow for things such as higher inflation, which can be a problem, but can also be useful in some situations.

It wouldn't solve Greece's problem, to be sure, but there are ways it could potentially help.

Comment: Also the Euro is stable and widely accepted (Score 3, Insightful) 358 358

Trying to push bitcoin only shows that the author has a poor understanding and an agenda. While you could, potentially, argue bitcoin in cases where a country's currency has collapsed, or is unable to be used to buy things from other countries. Bitcoin is highly volatile, a very poor store of wealth, but it is something you can spend and transfer, in some places at least, and at present it has value.

Well, that isn't an issue with the Euro. It is an extremely important and widely used currency, second only to the US Dollar. All Eurozone countries use it (by definition) which is quite a few major economies. As such it is also widely sought after in international currency exchanges. Euros are very easy to spend on the international scale. Many places will take them directly, and any bank will convert them.

Also the Euro is pretty stable. When you look at it compared to other major currencies like the Dollar, Pound, and the Yen it compares very well. All fluctuate, of course, but not very quickly. So it is a good store of value, you don't have to worry about losing your money. Works long term too, as many nations with good credit will sell debt instruments in Euros.

So there is nothing bitcoin solves here, because bitcoin is a currency and currency isn't the problem in Greece. This isn't Zimbawbe where the currency was worth nothing.

The only way it could "help" is to move money out in the event of capital controls on Greek banks. But of course:

1) You have to get the money out of the bank first, which a capital control can slow down.
2) The only way it facilitates that would be being less traceable. As I said, Euros are taken everywhere, you can convert them to Dollars or anything else.
3) Most importantly that wouldn't help the situation at all, it'd make it work. Might help an individual save money, but it would only worsen the situation.

Comment: It's mostly click-baitng, with a bit of stupid (Score 1) 301 301

A lot of it is just the run of the mill stupid site trying to drive up traffic with controversial headlines. Worked too, Slashdot linked to them. However part of it is just the guy being a derp and thinking that because the UI wasn't completely polished off it wasn't ready to go. Had he looked in to it, he'd realize that kind of polish is nearly always the things that comes last, right before release, for a variety of reasons.

Comment: Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl (Score 1) 146 146

Heck just being outted as gay, lesbian or even transsexual can bring you a lot of problem, even in western democracy like the US.

Or it can get you on the front page of every magazine, and revive your seriously fading celebrity.

Comment: Ummmmmm (Score 1) 81 81

If your funding is so bad that you can't afford anything newer than a P3 and a 17" CRT, I have to wonder just how good the research is that you do. Or maybe that you just don't understand how technology has changed.

I encountered the latter in my undergrad days. I was a psych major for a time, and as is tradition they force students to participate in experiments to get free subjects. So one of them was on Internet addiction. This was in the early 2000s, while broadband was not common it was not rare either and the university was of course on a dedicated link. All the questions were around "How long are you connected to the Internet?" and "How often do you log in?" and such things.

I tried to explain to the researcher such questions weren't meaningful to me, my computer was on all the time and I could just use it like any other program. They didn't understand, and figured I didn't understand and kept repeating the question. I tried to explain and demonstrate with their office computer. That failed though, because the thing was so slow it took the better part of a minute to launch IE, which they thought was dialing in to the Internet. For them it wasn't a seamless experience, they only used the Internet when they needed/wanted to since it was so slow. I could not communicate to them that for an ever increasing number of us, it wasn't like that, it was just a part of using a computer.

I've encountered things like this a number of additional times with psychology/sociology/behavioral researchers. Their grasp of computer technology is so poor that their studies are extremely flawed because they don't understand the tools they are using.

That aside, maybe this works, who knows without a link to the paper, but it seems like a more effective use of computers and dieting are the widespread calorie tracker apps. When people actually track what they take in, they often can do a much better job at preventing it from getting excessive.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1081 1081

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

Comment: Also lower power for performance (Score 1) 136 136

Intel's chips have been real good in terms of performance/watt these days. AMD has had real problems in that regard. Their high end chips are massive power sinks. Now in some uses, maybe that isn't important, but in a small system, it matters. You are going to have to jump though hoops to make sure you thermal system fits, is sufficient, and isn't loud anyhow, trying to put a ton more power in there isn't a winning idea.

Thus when you have the 4790k on the one hand, which is rated at 88 watts TDP, and the AMD AMD FX-9590 at 220 watts on the other hand, the choice is pretty clear. Even if performance were equal (it's not) the power savings is a clear win for a small unit.

At the moment a combination of older lithography technology and core design has AMD CPUs running pretty high power, so not the thing for SFF devices. Perhaps that will change with their next generation, we'll see.

Memory fault - where am I?

Working...