Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Lovely...with no pressing issues... (Score 1) 131

It's a problem that Harper won with ~40 percent of the vote. It's a problem that Trudeau did the same. It's a problem that the NDP won in Alberta due to vote splitting between the Wild Rose party, and the PC party.

This is why we need something other than FPTP.

Comment Re:Lovely...with no pressing issues... (Score 1) 131

Actually, the Diefenbaker Conservatives have prior claim - the destruction (literally) of the Avro Arrow (the most advanced fighter of the time) at the behest of the US government because the Bomarc nuclear SAM missiles would supposedly make the Avro obsolete (funny how we still need jet fighters and bombers more than half a century later, isn't it).

I have to correct you on that there, as the CF-105 wasn't designed as a fighter -- it was designed as an interceptor. Interceptors (and in particular the CF-105) weren't designed for areal dogfighting with other fighter aircraft -- they were designed to take down larger aircraft such as bombers.

The purported reason for cancelling the Arrow project was that the world was moving away from nuclear capable bombers towards ICBMs. The threat that the CF-105 was designed for was Russian bombers flying over our northern coast, but the advancement of technology was making the need to fly bombers unnecessary, hence a straight-on interceptor was no longer necessary.

Indeed, today very few countries design or purchase straight-up Interceptor aircraft for their air defence. Fighter jets became advanced enough back in the 60's and 70's to take on the role of both fighter and interceptor as needed. A multi-role fighter-interceptor was a much better investment for a smaller country like ours.

You are also somewhat incorrect concerning the BOMARC missiles. While the US designed them to be nuclear capable, and the initial intention was to have Canada's inventory equipped with nuclear warheads, in the end Died the Chief caved into public pressure, and the nuclear option was scrapped. Eventually, of course, all of the BOMARC missiles were scrapped -- the mission they were intended for (destroying bombers flying towards the DEW line) evaporated in the face of ICBMs.

Today we face relative little danger from bombers from Russia flying over the north pole, and even should that happen we have modern advanced middles to take care of them. There really is no place for dedicated interceptors anymore, and there hasn't been for decades. Now none of that is to say that Diefenbaker was right to scrap the CF-105s -- the way the completed jets and all of their plans was dismantled/discarded/destroyed is a national disgrace. My family knows very well how this went down and the pain it caused -- my grandfather was a mechanic at AV Roe who worked on the Arrow project, and who became unemployed at the projects termination. His pride in the Arrow project and his regret at its destruction (and general anger towards Diefenbaker and his cabinet for causing it to happen) lasted until the last of his days.

Yaz

Comment Re:Beginning of the end (Score 1) 119

Actually, I had exactly the same thought, and that's coming from a background in biochemistry.

It's not "global warming" that I find frightening; it's the schemes people come up with to "cool the planet" (one or two degrees and hello ice age) or "get rid of CO2" (which is to say, plant food -- this is a recipe for famine by reducing crop yields by at least as much, probably about half-again more since starving plants need more water, and cooling reduces rainfall).

So while you got modded funny... it was actually damned insightful.

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1055

I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.

No, at that point what you have is one possible service provider in a potentially competitive market - as opposed to the monopoly system we have now.

Comment Re:50 million island people to be displaced by 201 (Score 1) 331

I was rather more hoping for a summary than a direct link to the 2007 report.

If I were a global warming scientist, I would already have read through those hundreds of pages. As a non-scientist, with things I need to do, I somewhat rely on news stories, like this one:

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the âoepauseâ in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at itâ(TM)s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: âoe'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.â

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

And then I read through the PDFs at this site:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

The tone is rather tendentious (especially the second PDF) but I find the arguments compelling. As I understand it, the CAGW theory is that feedbacks will cause the warming to "run away" precipitously once we reach a cruical tipping point, but the PDFs have graphs showing the Earth once had a significantly higher CO2 concentration than currently without turning into another Venus. The annual news stories about "the previous year was the warmest on record" don't seem to mention error bars, and when I tracked some down I was astonished to see that the margin for the "warmest" claim was a small fraction of the uncertainty interval. And in my original post, now modded down to 0 score, I provided the link to an article with graphs comparing the predicted temperature increases with what actually were recorded.

I have seen proposals for a carbon tax that was intended to take trillions of dollars out of the economy. (The authors of the proposal viewed this as a feature: trillions of tax dollars of additional revenue for the US government! I personally don't think you can get something for nothing, so I worry about the harm that would occur if that level of tax was levied.) I think that this level of tax should require a high level of confidence, and I personally am not at that level yet.

Thank you for responding politely. You haven't convinced me and I likely haven't convinced you, but I hope you at least believe that I'm genuinely skeptical and not just trolling or trying to flame people about this.

Comment Since no one apparently said it (Score 1) 588

Twitter doesn't do government services and they'll be out of business shortly. Also, their leader is a left wing ideologue.

The rest of the companies would gladly take on the work. This surprises you how?

Did you somehow think that your ideology was going to keep on preventing people from working with Trump without political power? Think again.

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1055

No, under anarchy, you have the right to defend yourself; you just don't have the right to force other people to pay for your defense. So, for example, if you believe you need to go to war against brown people in the Middle East to defend yourself, you could; you just couldn't force everybody who disagrees to support you financially and give their children up for a draft.

Slashdot Top Deals

System checkpoint complete.

Working...