Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:127 Mill Maintenance robot vs 4 Billion AF1 (Score 1) 28

Well, it's actually $3.75 billion. And it's not one, but two aircraft, so that's 1.875 billion apiece. That's to ensure the executive branch can function in a military crisis while one of the planes is being service.

Deduct 375 million apiece for the airframe, and we're talking 1.5 billion dollars in customization for each aircraft, including aerial refueling capabilities, which on a two-off job is a craft job; no economies of scale. Add defense and countermeasure capabilities that Air Force is extremely close-lipped about. Is there a actual escape pod on Air Force One like in the movie? Well probably not, but I'm sure the idea was at least contemplated. However it's pretty certain that if someone locks onto AF1 with a targeting radar the aircraft will have options that a stock 747-8 doesn't.

Next outfit each one so it can function as a replacement for the West Wing and the Situation Room for up to two months -- that's a deducible requirement based on the known fact that the aircraft stores 2000 meals for 100 people. That means three-of-a-kind electronics and communications systems (one for each airframe and one for the actual White House).

Is 3.75 billion too much for that? Probably. But it's hard to think of any weapon development program since WW2 that is less extravagant.

By that standard 127 million for an orbital repair robot is an almost inconceivable bargain, even if you factor in a 5x cost overrun.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 362

china is an ascendant power.
they have the worlds largest economy.
they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.

they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity , giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country.
many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further.
But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole by many (ignorant) americans, has also done it now.

China has in fact been a bit help with NK, being one of the few countries capable of restraining them, that NK is willing to listen to.

Start a fight?
They very well might.

Learn your history, specifically Thucydides’s Trap.

We risk China being the Athens to our Sparta, even without Trump throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind.
Hint: it didn't turn out well for Sparta, nor most of the rest of the greek peninsula.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 362

Partial List:

Rorberbach (sp?) as Sec State, Putin's biggest cheerleader in congress.
Palin as Sec Energy
Harold Hamm as Energy, oil biollionare from OK who basically paid/extorted OK's earthquake researchers to blame anything else but fracking
Mary Failin as Sec Interior, after all, who better to be in charge of the park system, than someone loves to sell state land to private companies for profit
Carson as HUD
Sessions as Atty General, a man who thinks a) racism doesn't exist, b) civil rights laws are needed, c) has history of racist treatment of minorities, in charge of enforcing civil rights protections
Tom Price as HHS, a man who wants to end medicare/Medicaid/aca.
Devos as Sec Ed, a woman who want to kill the public education system and turn it into a profit driven industry
Mnuchin, as Treasury, a man who opposes all regulation of banking/wall st.
Ross as Commerce, who actively supports the idea of starting a trade war
Joe Arpaio as Homeland, a racist and recently fired sheriff who routinely violated prisoners rights
David Clarke as Homeland, sheriff for milwaulke who thinks all people who disagree with him/trump should be sent to Gitmo and have citizenship revoked
Sam Brownback as agriculture, the gov of Kansas who ran the state into the ground by making it a "red state utopia" of every conservative economic policy wet dream.

Comment Re:The Founder (Score 1) 362

who says they are less experienced?
who says they aren't an authority?

TWC actually has climate scientists and researchers on staff who participate and contribute to the body of research on the subject.
members of TWC staff have gone on to join other groups performing some of the leading edge research.

dismissing TWC staff as just "less experienced meteorologists" is ignorant and does them a disservice.

of the two groups, it is the founder who is lacking in experience.
Yes, he was a TV meteorologist for some 50 years.
But he never performed, published, or was involved in ANY climate research.
Nor did he ever become qualified to do so.
And when he tries to make scientific arguments, they are not based on any scientific data, and are soundly disproven the data that does exist.

He's sole claim to fame is he looked and sounded good on TV, and was a successful entrepreneur (starting up TWC).

To try and claim any sort parity between him and the current TWC staff, or even worse try to claim he is the more a complete denial of reality.

further reading:

Comment Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score 2) 362

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research


Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,


which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.


Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

Comment Re:Clinton took bribes (Score 1) 362

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

Comment Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score 3, Interesting) 362

The history of greenhouse effect theory is interesting and well worth reading up on. It was first raised as a possibility in the 1890s, but rejected quickly based on two erroneous beliefs: (1) that the oceans would rapidly absorb any increase in atmospheric CO2 and (2) that the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 mostly overlapped. Together these implied that CO2 could not increase in the atmosphere, and even if it did it could not capture any heat that water vapor wouldn't have anyway.

There are a lot of twists and turns in the story, which Wikipedia does a pretty good job of summarizing. I highly recommend reading that article.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_