Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Not as big as... (Score 1) 102

It reminds me of the R3Y which the US made in the 1950s. The airframe worked well but the engines let it down so less than 20 where built. And no it was not an amphibian but like the PBY if the engines had worked an amphibian version might have been made.
Also take a look at the birdcage of struts on the tip floats. Those look like they would produce a ton of drag and look rather flimsy. They look a lot like the mounting for the PBM vs the much cleaner mountings on the P5M.
The US doesn't build amphibians for SAR or ASW any longer because frankly they are a pain. Let's take a multi million dollar aircraft and dunk it in salt water. We use land based aircraft for search part of SAR and helicopters for the rescue part. A flying boat can only land to pick up people in calm seas anyway.
Until they actually enter service you never know. The question is will it be worth it for China? Do they have a lot of forest fires? Do they have areas with many lakes where building airfields is too expensive like Russia and Canada does in the tundra? Do they need this big and expensive of a water bomber and SAR aircraft?

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 200

"A century ago, there would be a battle that wiped out the next village, you'd never even hear about it."

Huh? Maybe in the remote parts of Africa or some other place that was still stuck in the stone age. Maybe. In the parts of the worlds actually living in the (early) 20th century not so much.

I think there's some truth to this, in that not even that long ago when something awful happened far away it may have gotten printed in a larger newspaper but even then the details were spartan, often delayed by days or weeks (depending on how far back we're talking).

Do you honestly not grasp the difference between "next village" and "far away"? (Not to mention failing to grasp the standards of mass media that existed as early as the mid/late 19th century.)

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 200

When will computer geeks grasp that most of the human race actually enjoys the company of others and that there are actual economic reasons why people cluster?

That's exactly what Kurzweil DID agree with. He said we've crowded into cities because we want to crowd. But it has downsides.

Um, no. Very few people want to crowd, because crowding is quite frankly uncomfortable. We put up with it because the benefits far exceed the downsides.

His contention is that as we improve communications and physical delivery of goods, we can have the economic benefits and companionship benefits of clustering without actually clustering.

Only if one is the stereotypical computer geek who doesn't actually enjoy the physical company of another. (And who doesn't grasp that 'crowding' delivers far more than economic and communications benefits.)

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377

Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 740

He pointed out her untruthfulness about a long list of things, one at a time. She said she only ever used a single mobile device. The FBI said that was untrue. Why? Because she used several of them. It's not a matter of English usage or context.

Are you really suggesting that she, a person known to be glued to her device, wasn't clear on the fact she used several, instead of one? She said she never handled any classified information on that account. She, who as the nation's top diplomat and read in on all sorts of extremely sensitive material and programs involving billions of dollars and life-or-death activities, was unable to recall the dozens of email threads - including top-secret and ABOVE top-secret material - in which she participated? Or understand that things like imagery from the NRO of sites in North Korea are born classified? She claimed no, and the FBI said her characterization of all of that was untrue. Are you saying that she really meant it when she said that knew she'd turned over every single work-related email because her lawyers had read each and every one of them ... which the FBI reported was untrue (to say nothing of the thousands more they turned up, which she had deleted)? I know I don't need to run down the list of 100%-exactly-wrong things she said, even under oath in front of congress, as she tried to wish this away, because you already know about them. They're not "context" problems, or her not double-checking things. She repeated these untrue things dozens of times for a year and a half.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 740

remember their bureaucracy had it's reset button hit recently with the whole government collapse. It's less entrenched, has less influence, and is less effective at mucking up the machinery. Also, with a scary as fuck, I-will-arrange-your-murder-the-disappearance-of-your-family-and-the-euthanasia-of-your-parakeet, retired-or-is-he intelligence spook running the country with an iron fist and bulging pectorals, people in the bureaucracy would be downright stupid or outright suicidal to play the obstructionist card with him.

Comment Re:Ok, so what? (Score 0) 217

Just a thought...

Since their corporate value is based on consumer data, what is to say they don't take certain actions to see how their consumers react? Given a Petri dish with over one billion humans in it, who wouldn't be tempted to run some experiments, rather than just observe? They have already been caught doing experiments before. I think its simplistic to assume their actions are based on ideology only.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377


So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?

Oh, I get it ... you think that the fact you know your vote is going to be thrown away as a way to help Hillary Clinton is irrelevant, because talking about it means you have to justify your support for her. That makes more sense, and fits your previous pattern of evasion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.