Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:islam (Score 2) 1350

The crusades were a power and money grab by European princes.
The excuse was "Let's kill the infidels and take back the cradle of our religion", but the aim was to maintain or gain control over the populace and get land and riches.
The sack of Constantinople (capital of a Christian albeit Orthodox state) very much shows this ("Unable to capture lands from the moors ? No problem, let' s plunder these nice fellows that are on the way").

Religion as a tool of political control...

Comment Re:Blame somebody else ... (Score 1) 1350

Absolutely not.

It is NOT "God's" fault (after all, how can an imaginary entity be at fault).

The fault is most certainly on very real people.
It is on those who exploit religion and manipulate people to their own ends, and those that, by omission or actively, allow or encourage their allies to exploit it.

The fault lies with the dictators who use it to maintain control, the upstarts that use it to gain control, and also the politicians that close their eyes when someone that is somehow usefull exploits the people this way.

This has been going on forever (ex.s : Rome's state paganism against christianity, islamic invasions of southern europe, The various crusades, the religious schisms and wars in europe, the european fascist states from the 1920 , the "Troubles" in Ireland, the sorry state of affairs in the Middle East, The Talibans/ Al Qaida/ ISIL, the ongoing attempts at intolerant christian polarization in some western countries , Buddhists oppressing the Royingas in Myanmar, etc...)

And when anyone tries to reduce this issue to "Us against Them", is either falling prey to these tyrants or has an agenda.

Comment Re:There are many problems with this. (Score 2) 290

Not entirely correct.

You have two very successful cases for nation (re)building. Japan and Germany, post WWII.
But that involves:
- Time (on a scale that people aren't willing to think nowadays).
- Money (lots of it). To repair infra-structure, and lots and lots of education.
- Be willing to accept that you can't transplant one's political system to very different sociological and psychological conditions.
- Be willing to occupy and fully control the geography (which imply there will be casualties)
The rewards are immense, as can be witnessed by the stability of Japan and W. Europe since WWII, which allowed the US to reap significant economic and political gains

In contrast you have the disaster of post-soviet invasion Afghanistan (where a lot of money was invested on defeating the
USSR, but almost none in helping the resulting "free" country),
and the missed opportunity of "war on terror" Afghanistan (where the US got distracted by "OMG Sadam Hussein has WMDs" ,
and the resources to fully pacify Afghanistan got diverted).

Comment Re:Ballsy (Score 1) 155

In the development of our current civil aviation environment, it has been found that the following process results in MORE safety.
If a certain technology is new:
- DO NOT allow widespread operation until such time that RISKS are well UNDERSTOOD and MITIGATED.
- Do a comprehensive (which means veeeery lengthy and expensive) test regime
- Account for risks (in terms of safety, security, etc...)
- Find ways to mitigate risk
- Create the relevant regulations
- Allow operation within the regulations

This means: NO commercial operations before this process is complete.

All aircraft manufacturers put their new designs (and in most cases , modifications of designs) through a demanding test regime.
Not doing so has been proven to be very very (very !!!!) bad !
Reading accident reports from the 1950 will show exactly why this is needed.

In this case, it is not only the design, but the mode of operation, which is significantly different from the remainder of aircraft (routes, density , etc..).
Any responsible regulator will be very careful with this.

With regards on commercial delivery operations on territories not under FAA regulations, I believe most advanced countries have the same kind of restrictions.
Most of the Civil Aviation authorities of advanced countries, will have regulation regarding experimental aircraft, and these will exclude commercial operations.

All this said, I believe most major Civil Aviation Authorities are looking into comercial drone operations.

Comment Re:Okay. Bidirectionally? (Score 1) 149

Or are we going to have to put up with an idiotically asynchronous connection like we already do with DSL (768K) now?

You probably mean Asymmetric.

I would think consumer and small business Internet access will keep on being asymmetric for the most part, whatever the technology.
Most users on those markets are consumers and not producers of data, which means more downloads than uploads.

Combine that with bandwidth being ALWAY scarce, you will have Engineers , network architects, product managers
and management designing their products taking that into account.

The market need for a symmetrical or a reverse ratio of uploads to downloads on the consumer segment is minuscule.

Comment Re:call Snowden (Score 1) 73

I would guess the "everyone" you are refering to is some subset of the countries on the report.

If you look closely, you will see that some put some very stringent limitations on what info can be obtained, when can it be intercepted and by whom.
And , gasp , some even report the number of intersections and requests.

Not being a US citizen/resident, it's none of my bussiness what the NSA does in the US, but I do take offence at their actions abroad, specifficaly those that impact MY leaders, MY country and MY liberties.

Comment Is this what passes for journalism these days ? (Score 1) 353

Unbelievably bad !

The Bugatti 100 wasn't a JET , much less an "advanced fighter jet". (Note to the author: Jet isn't synonym with combat aircraft).

It wouldn't be computer controlled . No computers with the right size and speed for controlling an aircraft where available (also, for the size, the control surfaces would be "muscle" powered, as where all aircraft of comparable size and era).

Being on the prototype stage, it would not ever be combat ready and in wide operational use for it to make any difference on the Battle of Britain (The prototypes for the Spitfire and the bf109 had first flights in 1936 and 1935 , operational around 1938 and 1937).

Compared to the previous issues, the "zero-drag cooling system" is of little consequence.

Also, no excuse for the author not being an "expert" on the subject .
Some basic fact checking ("oh, look it s got a propeller" or "when was the first flight control computer introduced ?") would keep the piece honest. (but would certainly intrude upon the the sensationalist tone).

Comment Re: It's about time! (Score 3, Insightful) 1431

An armed society is a FEARFULL society. FTFY

If you have to be "polite" because you fear someone shoots you because you may sound "disrespectfull/unfriendly/annoying" the "politeness" is completely hollow and is in fact fear.
Social norm would then be "who has the biggest most prominent guns wins/has right of way/is right".
Sounds too much like medieval times...

And don't tell me that if everyone has a gun it will be a level playing field. (think weapon, fitness, health, mood, social settings, fear of injuring someone you love or have some responsibility over, etc..., etc.. ,etc...)

Slashdot Top Deals

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics