Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:No one likes (Score 1) 635

Why doesn't either side stop the wars that were going on when they took power? How is that not a valid question?

Well, if we are being honest you said (I quote) But Trump hasn't gotten a good portion of the world mired in failed countries at war. When it comes to war, Hillary is probably to the right of any previous president, including W. by which we should be able to assume that you could speak to question of how this could be, if Bush started a war (on false pretenses) that Trump approved, in which a million people died, and Hillary didn't start any wars, and neither did Obama, and neither Obama, nor Hillary boasted (as Trump did) of their plans to kill millions more innocent people by nuking them.

It seems to me (and correct me if I'm reading this wrong) that the distinction seems more like the Republicans and their nuke obsessed warmongering candidate Donald Trump are the ones with blood on their hands, not the other way round, as you confidently asserted.

How is running guns into war zones to fight a proxy war in Syria not the same as Vietnam?

It's different in any number of ways, but most pertinently, nobody detonated a nuclear missile over Hanoi - mostly because they knew it would be a monumental mistake. Luckily, Trump wasn't around at the time.

Tridents have selective yields. In other words, adjustable. Starting in 2001, the British ones were able to go from 0.3 ktons to 100 ktons yield. ). 0.3 ktons is much less than North Korea's nukes. There's no reason to believe the US doesn't have similar capability.

If they do have this capability, then it isn't public knowledge. The British Tridents use a different warhead, and their nuclear strategy is quite different to the US, who have actual tactical warheads that they can attach to a cruise missile or drop from a plane without having to worry about the extremely negative consequences of lighting an SLBM and having that signature show up on various screens and dealing with the tense discussions that happen afterward.

If US Tridents have such a capability (an upgrade targeting package and the ability to only light one or two of the IRVs) then they aren't saying, and fair enough, which brings us back to Donald.

If Donald meant his reference to the trident to mean this, then he is deliberately exposing details of the Trident's capabilities that are probably classified. Is he an enemy of the United States? Or is he just an arsehole that likes to shoot his mouth off? I find that concept very ironic, given that he condemned Hillary for emails that someone else sent her and none of which exposed the US to harm, and here he is, harming the US to make himself look gangsta. What a dickhead!

No, most likely he meant it as read. He meant a Trident at full power, doing what it does best, detonating over Mosul or Palmyra or Raqqa and incinerating 100s of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Syrians or Iraqis. When he says he's going to "bomb the sh*t out of them" to use his words he doesn't mean to distinguish between ISIS and innocent people: as the analyst says (in the article I posted: "Trump’s plan to use thermonuclear weapons against ISIS-held areas such as the Syrian city of Al-Raqqah would result in an astronomically high number of civilian casualties, according to CNN military analyst Peter Mansoor. “Al-Raqqah alone has a population of over two hundred-thousand people, the vast majority of whom are not affiliated in any way with the Islamic State,” Mansoor said. “A strike of this magnitude would not only result in the loss of millions of innocent lives and infrastructure, but it would set diplomacy and stability in the region back at least a hundred years.”

What a guy!

Why do you think Japan wants to start building nukes?

They don't.

Destroying the enemy is the only form of self-defense that nukes are good for. Otherwise, they serve no purpose except to destabilize the situation, as North Korea is demonstrating.

And Donald Trump is demonstrating exactly the same thing. His grasp of reality sits level with Kim Jong Un.

Who said I was voting for Trump?

You were telling us a few days ago how impressed you were with his foreign policy credentials.

Comment Re:Human missions = funding (Score 1, Troll) 103

I mean, robots are no where near performing on the same level as humans when it comes to ingenuity and ability to come up with and implement ad hoc fixes to problems that no one could even imagine before launch of the mission.

Without humans, the mission is less complex so the risk of some problem occurring is much less.

But putting that question aside, the problem with robotic missions is that they will never get the same sort of funding as human missions.

But that just begs the question: why should we fund such a mission in the first place? The robotic mission is justified by science and our desire to explore new places. Arguable, of course, not everybody agrees that those goals are worth the spend, but let's say we agree that they are. Having the exploration craft carry a human along does nothing to further that cause, anymore than the cause is furthered by having the craft carry a bag of random meats, or a monkey that urinates on everything. Good for a laugh maybe - but we could explore more, and longer, and also go to far more interesting places for the same amount of spend.

Once we have this capability, we can easily send lots of robotic and scientific payload along with humans -- it amounts to simply using the same payload delivery system that we are developing for humans anyway.

But again, why send a human? Why not a cow, or a peacock?

On the other side, if there is no ambition to fly humans to Mars, then no one will develop these capabilities. There is simply no funding for a system that delivers 10 tons of cargo onto the surface of Mars, unless it can also deliver humans, and bring them back safely. So we cannot send big robotic missions to Mars.

We can if we want. But honestly, Mars is a bit boring, and we also know a great deal about it already. We have the opportunity to go to interesting places instead, why not do that?

Human missions generate lots of excitement, lots of excitement leads to lots of funding.

No, they don't.

There is a little excitement but it's confined to a small circle that happens to hang around in places like Slashdot. That might trick you into thinking this is a bigger deal than what it is. In the end, I think human spaceflight has been largely defunded because nobody can explain why we are doing it in terms that don't sound religious. Sorry, but perhaps the lack of funding is rational and not some mistake because congressman are fat and lazy.

Robotic missions can never be on par with human missions in terms of how much excitement, and thus funding they can raise.

You are presupposing the people who currently don't care one way or the other will suddenly get excited for some reason.

Perhaps, in the end, we need a better reason than a dog and pony show.

Comment Re:No one likes (Score 1) 635

Both sides have started stupid wars. The question is, why does the other party, after denouncing them, not get the f*ck out?

Nope, that's not the question. The question is (a) Why did the Republicans start a war in Iraq on false pretenses and kill a million Iraqis? Who benefited? Did Trump himself benefit? (b) Why does Trump claim that he did not support the war at the time when we have recordings of him saying that he did? Was he lying then, or now? (c) Why are the Republicans trying to blame someone else for the butchery that they committed?

Killing a few thousand with a tactical nuke to wipe out a threat is peanuts in comparison.

Trump used the words 'Trident' and 'submarine'. The Trident is an ICBM. It is not a tactical nuke. He (Trump) readily assented to the estimate that millions would be killed. See the link I posted.

Or better yet, just get the hell out of the middle east. Get out of the middle east, and let them kill each other off.

In which case, I don't get why you are voting for Trump. He is a 'boots on the ground' guy. He says he plans to send in troops - again. Unless he is lying?

Comment Re:oh, yes (Score 4, Insightful) 198

Why does everyone keep saying Russia works with Trump? I have yet to see anything along those lines other than a couple of comments from Trump about Putin.

I suspect the payment of 12.7M by Russia to Trumps Campaign Manager Paul Manaforte and the subsequent removal of the arming of the Ukraine from the RNC platform might have something to do with it.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 635

Right - so no court or jury, and no charges were laid.

She was accused of a crime. The OP said "she is a criminal". What is that ripping sound I hear?

They just have the clout to not get arrested like the rest of us.

Yes yes. It's all a big conspiracy - presumably the knights templar and the masons are involved as well.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 635

Hillary is objectively a criminal.

Pretty sure the US Bill of Rights says that a court of law is required to make that judgement, not a 2 bit shitposter on ./

Same sort of court of law that found Trump guilty.

. I'd literally rather have a monkey as POTUS than Hillary.

A monkey would make a better (less offensive) president than Trump. Less, err, unpredictable: and no monkey has ever expressed an intent to kill millions. Nor are monkeys as sleazy - no monkey has ever settled a sexual harassment suit out of court, afaik.

So: you go ahead and vote for the monkey.

Comment Re:No one likes (Score 3, Insightful) 635

Not the best choice? Neither candidate is trustworthy, but Trump hasn't gotten a good portion of the world mired in failed countries at war.

Trump heads the political party that started those wars, and he is their elected candidate. He supported those wars.

His plan at the moment is to kill millions of innocent people with trident missiles fired from submarines in the persian gulf.

Unless he is lying?

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 0) 635

Seeing as the person he is running against said tens of millions of US citizens are deplorable, irredeemable, racists.

Stop lying.

What she actually said was:“you could put Trump’s supporters in two big baskets. They’re what I call the deplorables. The racists and the haters and the people who are drawn because they think he can somehow restore an America that no longer exists.”

And that is: ... true. A proportion of Trumps supporters do support him for exactly that reason. She is telling it like it is.

Apparently Trumps supporters don't like people telling it like it is when the telling doesn't match with their own internal fantasies.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 2, Informative) 635

Trump changes position more often than I change my shirt. And I never let my shirt get the stink on. He will frequently lie about his previous positions, e.g his recent claim that he was against the Iraq war is a lie. "Correct the Record" refers to exactly that. When Trump lies, call it out it immediately. Shitposting is lying to disrupt the discourse. Correcting the record, is the exact opposite.

I'm not an American, so I won't be voting for either, but it does seem that (a) most of the stories about Hillary, if not all of them, are just shitposts by whiners who can't speak intelligently to problems with her policy direction, and (b) Trump has no clue how to lead a country, and no idea about what to do in complex policy issue like Syria, to the extent that he says whatever comes to mind at the time and he has no regard for whether the things he says are true and accurate, or not.

Just my impression.

Comment Re:But not Trump's Taxes? (Score 2) 122

What would be the point?

If they aren't embarrassed by the things Trump says and does, and by the fact that they had no-one, not one person, in the ranks of the party that they thought was better qualified to lead the party and the country then Donald Trump, they surely wouldn't be embarrassed by the release of schedules or private emails.

How can the private things be MORE embarrassing then the dirty laundry of Donald's mouth? That just boggles the mind.

Every few days we hear of another republican disowning him and his bizzarro worldview. What could be said that's more embarrassing?

Comment Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score 1) 610

So, are there references for when Obama said that being unpredictable was good in a n unclear stand off?

Is there a quote form Mitt Romney saying that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weapons?

Is there a quote from Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or indeed any of the other Republican candidates, saying the it's inevitable that Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons and nothing can be done about it?

Comment Re:Stick a fork in.... (Score 1) 610

Well, there's worse things than breaking the law.

He probably has broken the law - the other day I heard him spruiking his business interests at a media event supposedly for him to renounce his previous claims about Obama and his place of birth - in my country there are laws to prevent conflicts of interest, which it seems there aren't in the US otherwise he would certainly have broken those laws. And there are ongoing investigations into his business connections which, if the allegations are true, would dwarf Clintons wrongdoings.

But regardless, there are worse things than breaking the law. His attitudes on nuclear prolifieration, in particular, his suggestion that South Korea and Japan ought to acquire nuclear weapons, his attitude that nothing can or should be done to ensure that Wahabbists (like ISIS) do not acquire nuclear weapons. His refusal to rule out detonating nuclear weapons in Europe, His claim that being unpredictable is a good approach in a nuclear standoff.

There was talk amongst Republicans that Trump might be suffering from a mental illness. He appears to genuinely believe he is qualified to lead a country. I'm not a fan of Hillary by any means. But she doesn't seem to be doing or planning or saying anything that would materially damage or embarrass the United States, if she were elected. Trump seems to embarrass and denigrate the country every time he opens his mouth.

Comment Re:Scares people from future evidence (Score 3, Insightful) 527

I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around.

It happened more recently than that of course. Not so long ago (last year), on this site I had a guy claiming that there was no warming and pasted a link to a data site (woodfortrees.org) to prove it. Of course his link was carefully constructed to exclude regions where the warming signal was more obvious - in other words, he concealed the truth. Which did make me think how (or if) he actually believed there was no warming if he went to that much trouble to conceal the warming signal?

I disagree though, that this ought to make me distrust the science. Yep, there's lots of liars out there. Plenty of the top level operatives (e.g. Judith Currie, Anthony Watts) are sponsored by PR companies to spread "a difference version of the truth" (in other words, lies) but how does that actually impugn the science of climate at all? It sounds counterintuitive to me, that the existence of bodies who are paid to disguise the facts actually means the facts themselves are in doubt.

Comment Re:Not Slytherin eh? (Score 1) 117

I expect there are bad eggs in each house.

That's a reasonable assumption. The hat seems to choose based on fairly arbitrarily set criteria (it's a hat, after all, and not that smart). Unfortunately old Godric might have been a noble fellow, but he obviously didn't see that every character type has it's strengths and weaknesses:

1. "Boldness" = tendency towards callousness and bullying (G)

2. "Loyalty" = low self esteem (H)

3. "Wits" = Arrogance, aloofness,lack of empathy (R)

4. "Ambition" = Egomania

If each person had been placed with others who would balance out those weaknesses, they would all have been better off. I recall that someone in the book said something to that extent toward the end: 800 years too late, IMO.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

Working...