GOCE Satellite Burned Up Over Falkland Islands

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GOCE Satellite Burned Up Over Falkland Islands

Posted by Unknown on Monday November 11, 2013 @02:00PM from the burning-up dept.

An anonymous reader writes with an update on the fate of the GOCE satellite. From the article: "The mystery of GOCE's re-entry has now been solved — the one-ton satellite came down over the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory 300 miles east of the Patagonian coast in the South Atlantic Ocean."

107 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

All Clear! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:07 · Score: 0

I can safely come out of my basement now. The tinfoil hat will remain firmly seated though.
1. Re:All Clear! by Jstlook · 2013-11-11 15:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have to point out that, unless you've been handed that tinfoil hat from your great-grandfather, you're likely wearing aluminum foil. Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know.
  
  --
  ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
2. Re:All Clear! by girlintraining · 2013-11-11 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know.
  Science fail. They're both metal. Both would act as antennas unless grounded. Conversely, it would also make it easier for you to tune into Their thoughts. But let's be honest... you really don't want that. It's like googling for something innocent and getting a face full of porn and then having your boss walk by at that exact moment.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:All Clear! by philip.paradis · 2013-11-11 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  I have a lovely hat for you. It's fashioned from pure curium, and you'll undoubtedly be the first on the block to wear one.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
4. Re:All Clear! by unitron · 2013-11-11 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  A Face Full of Porn.
  Now there's a movie title.
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
5. Re: All Clear! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on the wavelength. Some xrays go right through Al but not through Sn.
6. Re:All Clear! by RaceProUK · 2013-11-12 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Or a band name.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
7. Re:All Clear! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  This whole "acting as antenna unless grounded" thing is getting on my nerves. It's fucking meaningless. Ground impedance at contemporary radio frequencies sucks so thoroughly that the whole concept should be best forgotten about. The soil is an RF-absorber, that's all. A length of wire longer than a tenth or two of a wavelength is not an effective short anymore. The free-space wavelength at 2.4GHz is about 5 inches, for crying out loud.
8. Re:All Clear! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, WOOSH to you and the moderators. Insightful??? Really???? I got a grin out of it bur insightful is NOT a moderation for a funny yet incorrect comment.
9. Re:All Clear! by ihtoit · 2013-11-12 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  4.92 inches.
  </Spock>
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
mixup at the Falkland Islands. by Gravis+Zero · 2013-11-11 14:10 · Score: 5, Funny

I dont think that's what they meant when they said they wanted Satellite TV.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
From the not las Malvinas dept by hedley · 2013-11-11 14:11 · Score: 1

Was that you Margaret?
1. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by gmhowell · 2013-11-11 14:36 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Was that you Margaret?
  Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
2. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Hartree · 2013-11-11 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
  See, now that she's gone, the world is perfect and Britain would never do anything bad like spoof slashdot.
  Oh, wait...
3. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:03 · Score: -1
  
  Baroness Thatcher will live on in memory and media.
  May she Rest in Peace.
4. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:22 · Score: -1
  
  AKA: when you've done something as important to humanity as bringing the end of the Soviet Union, then maybe you have room to criticise her legacy.
5. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot one.
6. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by unitron · 2013-11-11 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Was that you Margaret?
  Thatcher, or Hamilton?
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
7. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, who mentioned Gorbachev?
8. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  The One that brought down the USSR was no other than President Reagan with the help of Premier Gorvachov. You brits are full of self importance and full of it.
9. Re:From the not las Malvinas dept by ihtoit · 2013-11-12 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  um... hate to tell you this, but MHT had absolutely nothing to do with that. It was down to Reagan challenging Gorbachev to tear down the wall and popularist reaction to that challenge in physically tearing the wall down that ended the cold war. Thatcher was too busy going senile after not only sending our entire naval force to the Falklands to beat the shit out of the "brown bastards" who had the brass neck to claim back their territory which had previously been *annexed* in the name of the Empire, she started the whole deindustrialisation of our once great nation starting with the steel industry, the coal industry, water and power utilities, the telecommunications infrastructure, roads and railways, the canals and her parting shot? Well, this was the ONE good thing she left us: our hostility towards European unionism and our resistance to the Superstate. She grew up in the dust of war, she remembered what that war was about, and saw the Turned Swastika in the European Community of the 1970s and 80s, and rightly despised it.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
British? by SmarterThanMe · 2013-11-11 14:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

...There are some Argentinians who would like to have a word with you, Unknown Lamer. ;)
1. Re:British? by slimjim8094 · 2013-11-11 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they would. It can't do them any less good than their war with the British, and continued attempts to convince the actual residents that they don't want to be British citizens.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
2. Re:British? by EdIII · 2013-11-11 15:10 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I never did understand that.
  It would be one thing if the residents on the island identified with being Argentinian and the majority wished to be part of that country. However, it's not.
  Why does Argentina continue to assert that the island is theirs at all?
  It's about the same stupidity that China engages in claiming that Taiwan is theirs.
3. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Because the island were taken by force by the british before.
4. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Please, read better information sources. They is no doubt about the actual residents' nationality, the conflict is because of the land.
5. Re:British? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-11-11 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Is it ever politically inconvenient to have a wicked foreign enemy, close enough to be viscerally insulting, distant enough to not be a real problem?
6. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  > Because the island were taken by force by the british before.
  Yeah, but from whom? Not from anyone that could be considered the current Argentine government.
7. Re:British? by FlyHelicopters · 2013-11-11 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why does Argentina continue to assert that the island is theirs at all?
  Oil...
  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/the-falkland-islands-brace-for-oil-wealth
8. Re:British? by lvxferre · 2013-11-11 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  I never did understand that.
  I do.
  Most Argies don't give a fuck about those islands. However, they're a convenient excuse from Argentinian government to shift focus from whatever current problem the country has to the same old nationalist babble.
  It's like that in the whole Latin America, by the way... just with different "targets".
  
  --
  Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
9. Re:British? by dkf · 2013-11-11 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's like that in the whole Latin America, by the way... just with different "targets".
  Not just Latin America. It's a favoured tactic of politicians the world over. Why do something about a real problem (that's expensive and might not work!) when you can stir up fuss and bother about foreigners?
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
10. Re:British? by Idetuxs · 2013-11-11 19:33 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. And as "dfk" says, it's a universal government tactic.
  I'm form Argentina and I've got to say it's insulting the way they use this. They not only just focuses on the target for a few months (furiously I may say) but appeal on feelings like patriotism, because the target ALWAYS want to destroy the country and the democracy. (resemble other country of America?)
  The worst of all is.. a lot of people buy it.
  So moronic.
11. Re:British? by isorox · 2013-11-11 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they would. It can't do them any less good than their war with the British, and continued attempts to convince the actual residents that they don't want to be British citizens.
  No, they don't do that.
  They claim the residents (who have been there for generations) don't have a right to self determination.
12. Re:British? by isorox · 2013-11-11 20:12 · Score: 2
  
  Because the island were taken by force by the british before.
  Back in 1766? When MacBride attacked those penguins?
  The Falklands have had been British for at least 170 years.
13. Re:British? by Eunuchswear · 2013-11-11 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  They is no doubt about the actual residents' nationality
  Well, there wasn't until Maggie took it away, by accident.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
14. Re:British? by Alioth · 2013-11-11 21:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  When the Argentinians return Argentina to the control of the natives they took Argentina from by force, then perhaps they might have a point (and not a very good one - who did the British take the Falklands from by force? No one actually lived on those islands when the British first settled there). The Falklands haven't ever been Argentinian, and furthermore the Spanish name for them (Las Malvinas) isn't even Spanish, it's derived from French (the French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville gave them the name îles Malouines derived from the name Saint-Malo in France, which became Las Malvinas in Spanish).
  Saying Argentina should have them because they are close to Argentina is like saying Puerto Rico should be given to Cuba because it's closer to Cuba than the USA.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
15. Re:British? by jonbryce · 2013-11-11 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  No it wasn't. It was unoccupied when the British arrived.
16. Re:British? by Xest · 2013-11-12 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  "Saying Argentina should have them because they are close to Argentina is like saying Puerto Rico should be given to Cuba because it's closer to Cuba than the USA."
  Or Alaska given to Canada/Russia, or Ireland be put back wholly under British control, or the Chinese claim to the likes of Tibet, Taiwan and so forth formalised and accepted internationally.
  You're exactly right and this highlights why the geographical argument is utter nonsense.
  Beyond that the other arguments just don't go in Argentina's favour - the citizenship obviously don't want to be Argentinian, the "who got there first" argument goes entirely against Argentina because it was the British or the French, and France supports Britain's claim and beyond that it's back to "But the Spanish gave it to us!" - yes, except it wasn't Spain's to give because Spain did to the British there exactly what Argentina is claiming the British did to them so by their own logic if you follow the who took it from who argument back to square one then you just return to "who got there first" which makes it firmly an Anglo-French affair.
  But the bigger problem for Argentina is that there have been times in the past where the British have been willing to work with Argentina on the islands - joint exploration with Anglo-Argentinian participation in oil exploration for example but every time Argentina gets into a crisis it's inept leadership decides to play hardball to try and bolster their image at home and it goes tits up. If Argentina behaved itself, was constructive, and could run it's own country successfully without going bankrupt the chances are the populace of the Falklands would've been willing to voluntarily go under Argentinian control by now simply because it'd be far more practical for them to do so.
  So they shoot themselves in the foot entirely by being combative and by using it as their favourite political scapegoat every time they fuck up.
  If Argentina wants the Falklands there's a simple solution - stop being a bunch of dicks, be nice to the islanders and give them a reason to want to be Argentinian. The very fact they don't do this shows how much Argentina's interest in the Falklands is about resorting to populism in the face of political ineptitude rather than absolutely anything else.
  As an aside, I also firmly believe this is where the US went wrong with Cuba. Rather then perpetuating the embargo they have on Cuba put in place since the Cuban missile crisis I'd wager that after the fall of the soviet union that if the US had free trade with Cuba it'd be so westernised right now with millions of American tourists and imports that it'd probably be racing against Puerto Rico for 51st state status and would likely be a thriving democracy.
  It may sound wishy washy but the reality is if you want something from someone it's generally better to not try and play the bully towards them. Especially so when they have a brother that can be a far bigger bully than you are looking over them.
  I don't think anyone in the UK really gives a shit if the Falklands want to go under Argentinian control voluntarily, but we're not going to put up with them being bullied into it. Argentinians need to think about the alternative and see how they'd feel if we resolved the proximity argument by just taking over Argentina and making them British by force instead - sound like a horrible, unfair, frustrating, anger-inducing idea? It should, that's how you make the Falklanders feel each time you open your mouths on the issue.
17. Re:British? by xelah · 2013-11-12 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Both sides assert that the islands are theirs because it's popular. Everyone likes to see their country have shiny things, especially if it means getting one over on another country. And it's a convenient (yuck) patriotic distraction from the governments' other failings. And the war made it much harder for their to be any sort of peaceful settlement...when hundreds of people die defending something it gets a lot harder for politicians to explain wanting to go back on their earlier position. (I think people should remember, however, that the islands were attacked by a military dictatorship but now claimed by a democracy(-ish)).
  The arguments advanced by the two sides I think have little relation to the real reasons and are never going to get anyone anywhere. Argentinians cite geography and the bit of its history they like. The British cite the bits of history /they/ like, and the opinion of the residents. Both have counter-arguments to anything the other side can say.
  Meanwhile it makes not the slightest difference to the lives of almost anybody in the two countries.
18. Re:British? by Xest · 2013-11-12 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think he's referring to the fact that when the Spanish left the British took control again, but that ignores the fact that the Spanish had already taken it from Britain/France in the first place.
  So the argument is self-defeating anyway, if you argue that it's wrong for Britain to claim it back from Spanish rule after they left and told Argentina they could have it because you believe it's wrong to seize by force then you also have to accept that it was wrong for the Spanish to claim it from the original Anglo-French arrivals.
  Effectively what people such as the AC are trying to do is argue that it was only wrong when the British did it and not when the Spanish did it first, which is logically inconsistent.
19. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with the way you phrase that is that you leave out that the British are citing the parts of history they like that are relevant to international law concerning territorial claims as well as the will of the people who live there having the right to self-determination. Argentina is citing the part of history they didn't decide was a big deal until the 1930's when their Nazi pals decided to get them all riled up. They're also conveniently ignoring the huge swaths of land they stole from Chile by the same logic.
  Two sides having differing opinions doesn't mean they're equally valid.
20. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed so much force was uses that noone was hurt and no shots were fired.
21. Re:British? by hjf · 2013-11-12 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  and beyond that it's back to "But the Spanish gave it to us!" - yes, except it wasn't Spain's to give
  Pretty much the same as Gibraltar, no? The dutch gave it to England... except it wasn't theirs to give.
  
  but every time Argentina gets into a crisis it's inept leadership
  Corrupt leadership. FTFY.
  
  If Argentina wants the Falklands there's a simple solution - stop being a bunch of dicks, be nice to the islanders and give them a reason to want to be Argentinian.
  That's not true. Before the war, the islanders would come to Argentina and buy groceries and supplies here. They had a good relation with us. After the war, everything changed. The islanders are proud to be british. And if you think the UK, which has both economical (oil) and strategical (military bases) in the Malvinas would even think of letting the islanders have any real control over the islands, you're a fool. The fact that the islanders continue agreeing to being under UK control is because they're clever enough not to fall into the independentist revolutionarism mindset that Latin America has. The difference being that Spain never saw America as a territory to populate and extend. Spain was just a leech, sucking up all resources America had. Tremendous amounts of gold and silver were taken. Hundreds of thousands massacred. Spain never meant to negotiate or give people living there anything at all. They saw all the people living there as either slaves or tools to the empire. And that's why Latin America in general insists with the independentism. Because we've been looted by Spain.
  UK had a subtler approach. The main expression of this being Australia, a territory that was populated by the british and thrives now. The UK didn't go committing genocide against all natives and just taking everything they could, and load into ships to take to the queen. They had a naughty child, yes, one that dared to go in a war with them, and win it. But that child is now their biggest partner (as a side note: Spain is the largest investor in Argentina).
  At the time of independentist revolution in Latin America, the UK was under a different kind of revolution. The industrial one. The UK needed to export their production, and Latin America, the new, unpopulated territory, with no infrastructure, was an excellent candidate. So the UK supported the independence in Latin America, and built a LOT of infrastructure. If you pay attention, in the old parts of Buenos Aires, you can see "MADE IN ENGLAND" written in a lot of things. From the beautiful bronze door of what's now ICBC bank, to the subways of BA. Of course, the UK was clever enough to prevent Latin Americans from establishing their own trade routes, by building railroads that couldn't connect between countries (they made Argentina and Brazil different gauges).
  
  we're not going to put up with them being bullied into it
  I don't think any of you NATO members have a moral authority to call anyone else a "bully".
  Also, you're obviously not even remotely an expert in international relationships. Let's make it easier for you: if Argentina "sits down to negotiate", that act itself would be considered defeat, and it would mean Argentina doubts its sovereignity over the islands. As a sovereign country, with a claim over a territory, Argentina can't and won't ever "negotiate" anything. As an example, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#British_position
  
  The UK Government will never — 'never' is a seldom-used word in politics — enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word 'never' sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been
22. Re:British? by Xest · 2013-11-12 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Pretty much the same as Gibraltar, no? The dutch gave it to England... except it wasn't theirs to give."
  Sure, but it's not Britain making the argument is it? It's Argentina.
  "And if you think the UK, which has both economical (oil) and strategical (military bases) in the Malvinas would even think of letting the islanders have any real control over the islands, you're a fool."
  Been swallowing your nation's propaganda I see. Tell me, what exactly do you expect us to do with a military base in the South Atlantic? It's a launch point for exactly nothing. The only reason there's a worthwhile military base there in the first place is precisely because Argentina invaded. The oil claim is unproven still and until the Kirchner dynasty decided to cut off it's nose to spite it's face the British government invited Argentina into joint oil exploration rights anyway. This is because a cooperative agreement where oil could be piped direct to Argentina would allow much quicker and more efficient exploitation of the resources if they actually exist - it would be a mutually beneficial partnership but Kirchner needed the Falklands for political propaganda once more so threw it all away.
  "I don't think any of you NATO members have a moral authority to call anyone else a "bully"."
  Nonsense. Just because NATO and the UK are bullies doesn't remove the right to also call other nations bullies. The UK may well be a bully of weaker nations, but weaker nations can still bully even weaker nations or territories again, and they deserve to be called out on that as much as we do. We don't get to go and rob the local cash machine because someone else robbed a bank and say "You have no right to call me a criminal, that guy robbed a whole bank!".
  "So, see? Argentina is not that crazy. We play the same international politics rethorics game everyone else plays."
  You realise Gibraltar isn't the Falklands right? Even if the British government has used the term never in relation to Gibraltar it most certainly hasn't with the Falklands - our PMs have consistently followed the line that they wont negotiate sovereignty whilst the islanders want to remain British - that's explicitly conditional so it's obvious what the Argentinians want to do if they really want it - make the islanders want to be Argentinian by treating them better though yes, that's going to be pretty fucking difficult after you invaded them. It'll take time and it's not impossible, but each time you threaten them and use them as scapegoats for your own internal problems you're only making it more difficult and causing it to take even longer.
  "Let's make it easier for you: if Argentina "sits down to negotiate", that act itself would be considered defeat"
  This is further nonsense, your own country's exact position is that it wants to sit down and negotiate over the islands because UN resolution 2065 stated we should do exactly that. Our government refuses to because it views it as pointless as the islanders don't want anything other than to remain British right now:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23596312
  How can you criticise someone else for not understanding international politics when you don't even understand the position of your own country on the issue in question?
23. Re:British? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  For strategic sheep purposes!
24. Re:British? by Cederic · 2013-11-12 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  The guys in Gibralter are happy being protected by the UK too. They've voted against becoming Spanish more than once.
  All your quote states is that the UK is respecting the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in question - in your quote, Gibralter, in the South Atlantic it's the Falklands.
  So fuck off back to Spain and return South America to the natives or stfu.
Satellite by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:13 · Score: 0

So... the satellite came down overhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/13/11/12/0140241/goce-satellite-burned-up-over-falkland-islands# the Malvinas Islands, I understand.
Where the hell is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:13 · Score: 0

Falkland Islands? Whoever heard of them? Must be pretty goddamned unimportant...
Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:19 · Score: -1

I mean, is so hard to say that? that Islas Malvinas are 300 miles east of Argentina?
BTW, looking at the picture shown in the link, you can see how much closer is Islas Malvinas to Argentina than to other countries, like, for example, UK.
1. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  The people who live there aren't of Argentinian descent.
2. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes because human populations and are trumped by position and people have no right to self determination, that is except for those people that Argentina does not want to murder or dispossess of their homes.....
3. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, is so hard to say that? that Islas Malvinas are 300 miles east of Argentina?
  BTW, looking at the picture shown in the link, you can see how much closer is Islas Malvinas to Argentina than to other countries, like, for example, UK.
  Are we going to fight that war again to the same conculsion?
4. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  That time the war was to distract the population from internal problems. The Argentinian government didn't think England would care enough to have people die for the land (by then no oil had been found). As everyone knows, they were wrong. Imagine the moment they realised the situation they got themselves in, and with absolutely nobody else to blame.
  That said, the land should belong to Argentina. It's too problematic for the countries in the region for England to have land there. Of course, it'd be disavantageous to England so it won't happen any time soon.
5. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  Curiously France and Britain are 21 miles apart, and Chile and Argentina are 0 miles apart...
  I find distance arguments a bit spurious with sovereignty claims, and at the end of the day Argentina came after the Falkland Islands in terms of being an entity. Therefore, if Argentina wishes to continue pressing its claim then it might be important to note that the reverse can also be true...
6. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  What problems could the UK owning those islands possibly cause for South American countries?
7. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by ulzeraj · 2013-11-11 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Those discussions are dumb and they seem to ignore the will of the people who live there. They do not want to be argentinians and they also are not that much fans of british interventions. That place is paradise for people who wants to live a simple life.
  It sounds even more dumb if you consider the fact that Argentina can't even hold their shit together. They should fix their stuff before bragging about rights to that place.
8. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Dereck1701 · 2013-11-11 15:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "That said, the land should belong to Argentina."
  If it was an occupation I would agree wholeheartedly. However if what I am reading is correct the people (mostly of European decent) currently living there have been doing so for around 200 years. Even the first known settlement, around 323 years ago, was of English origin. A referendum held in march of this year had a 99.8% vote to remain a colony of the UK. People should have the ability to associate with others based on their own determination, not geographic location.
9. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  > The people who live there aren't of Argentinian descent.
  And the people in the USA aren't from there, but that doesn't mean that they're not subjects of the USA government.
10. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by evilviper · 2013-11-11 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, is so hard to say that? that Islas Malvinas are 300 miles east of Argentina?
  While that would be a slight improvement, Argentina spans over 1,000 miles north-south on the east-coastal region alone, so still not very specific.
  If I was describing the location to somebody, I would call it "300 miles north-east of Cape Horn."
  That seems much easier, obvious to folks without a strong background in prehistoric geography, and useful to real, normal people.
  
  BTW, looking at the picture shown in the link, you can see how much closer is Islas Malvinas to Argentina than to other countries, like, for example, UK.
  And? Alaska is closer to Russia and Canada than it is to the US. And let's not get started on the Philippines...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
11. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Eunuchswear · 2013-11-11 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Curiously France and Britain are 21 miles apart
  And France and Brazil are 0 miles apart, and Brazil and Argentina are 0 miles apart.
  So the Falklands/Malvinas are only 21 miles further from the UK than they are from Argentina.
  Or maybe I'm making some mistake?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
12. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 21:42 · Score: 0
  
  The people of Argentinia aren't of Argentinian descent either, the original population was exterminated by the ancestors of the current population.
13. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Alioth · 2013-11-11 22:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why should it belong to Argentina? No Argentinians live there. Just because it's close to Argentina isn't a justification (or perhaps the US should give Puerto Rico to Cuba because PR is closer to Cuba than it is to the USA). What's important is the population, now established for a couple of centuries, is British and wants to remain that way. They have the right to self-determination.
  The Spanish name (Las Malvinas) isn't even Spanish, it's actually derived from French. A French sailor named the islands after the port of Saint Malo in France.
  If the Argentinans want to argue that the British originally took it by force (from whom? no one was living there) then they need to return Argentina back to the native people they took Argentina from before taking that particular "moral high ground".
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
14. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by jonbryce · 2013-11-11 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Patagonia has the 3rd largest Welsh speaking population in the world after Wales and England. Maybe Patagonia should be part of Wales, and it is after all only 300 miles away from the Falklands which is British.
15. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  But, wouldn't it make more sense to give PR to Dominican Republic? they are, after all, closer than Cuba. If they complain, give Jamaica to Cuba and be done with it.
16. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Hognoxious · 2013-11-12 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, is so hard to say that? that Islas Malvinas
  The what? Never heard of them.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
17. Re: Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  It is disingenuous for britain to claim the almighty self determination in this case (when it serves them). How many times these self determination rights were respected by them when forming their empire? For example, in 1806 they attempted 2 times to invade Buenos Aires (failed both times). How about India? Australia? The african colonies? Slaves? So much for consulting the locals on their desires.
18. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  It does actually, unless they were born here, resided here in 1776, or went through a process of naturalization and immigration. Otherwise they remain nationals of their own countries, visitors for a limited time. Being in the USA doesn't make you a subject of the US government any more than I would be French if I got a flat in Paris.
19. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is not with the people, the problem is with the government. The argentinians are European descent.
20. Re: Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, because the stupid evils of the past generations of another country are automatically shared and agreed with by all of the current generations of that country and for that reason when any other nation decides to imitate those past generations in their evil they get a free pass for murder.....
21. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  The Argentinians leaving there were expulsed. If you deport people that does not make you the owner, just you are a thief.
22. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  No they weren't. But using that logic, Argentina needs to give its land back to the natives that lived their before it was colonised by Europeans before it can claim that moral high ground.
23. Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Most Argentinians are of European descent as well.
  I think the main problem is probably that the Argentinians (or more precisely their government) does not recognize the right to self determination to the people in the islands because they probably consider them "invaders" (or invader's descent)
  What would happen if 1 million Spanish people went to Gibraltar, demonstrated, voted and said, "hey, we voted and decided that we want to be part of Spain"?. The UK would not recognize that vote saying, "hey, you're not from Gibraltar, that does not count", right?
  As always, the "right of self determination" is being "respected" by UK's government because it fits them (that is, the islanders side with the UK, if the islanders did not sided with the UK, their claims would go unheard).
  At the same time the "right to privacy" of their own people and other EU allies, is "not respected", again, because it fits todays' agenda.
  Furthermore, the islanders were not even "UK citizens" until after the war, in 1983.
  I have not met a single English person that knows where the islands are, some did not even know their country had a war over them. I have met a few Argentinian people that know where the islands are. None of those two groups of people cared about the islands, and those that cared were mostly saddened by the war itself and the people that tragically died there because the craziness of a dictator (Argentina had a military dictator back then, he was trained by the same people that trained all dictators in South America) and the stubbornness of a woman whose popularity was falling. The leaders of both sides were unpopular, and the war was a show to distract the people from the real problems, it benefited both at first, at the expense of other people's lives (the soldiers'). Just like today.
  The only reason borders exist is to prevent free market and for some short-dicked people to be able to call themselves, king or president or whatever of a given place; then they are able to exert some form of tax collection in order to pay for their palaces, tv stations and under age prostitutes, while at the same time being able to blame the "foreigners" of most problems they themselves create or are incapable or even unwilling to solve.
  Hence, for common people, borders are just an annoyance, although it is commonly used as a way to cast a "foreign" hue on those that were not born in a given geographical place (or whose parents were not from a given geographical place) so that they can make jokes about them, be condescending, etc.
  By the way, most people here are only reading and repeating Wikipedia, and sadly they only read the English version. Reading the other languages can give another point of view, as well as reading this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Current_claims
it came over on the "Malvinas Islands" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:21 · Score: 0

Falkland Islands??? whats that??
1. Re:it came over on the "Malvinas Islands" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  "Malvinas" is the Argintine jingoism for the Falkland Islands.
Fag08z by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:30 · Score: -1

reprEsents the uncover a Story of
I say Falklands, you say Malvinas! by Hartree · 2013-11-11 14:35 · Score: 1

The British GCHQ spoofed slashdot. Now the Argentine intelligence agency will have to as well now that you called them the Falklands.
It's all about keeping up with the Thatchers. Or the Galtieris.
GOCE Satellite Burned Up Over Falkland Islands by mrsquid0 · 2013-11-11 14:37 · Score: 2

I hope that it did not suffer too much.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force" by Hartree · 2013-11-11 14:45 · Score: 4, Funny

"As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
1. Re:"I felt a great disturbance in the Force" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Now you're just making me hungry.
2. Re:"I felt a great disturbance in the Force" by maroberts · 2013-11-11 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  "As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
  I want to know the sauce of this quote, preferably mint.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
3. Re:"I felt a great disturbance in the Force" by isorox · 2013-11-11 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  "As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
  I want to know the sauce of this quote, preferably mint.
  Yes they run linux
Way off by Dereck1701 · 2013-11-11 15:08 · Score: 1

Someone was way off, I thought I read something this morning putting its demise somewhere around Siberia/Alaska? I'm also surprised anyone saw it, the Falkland Islands aren't exactly populated. I think its somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 people, the average 36 square mile county has that around me and the Falkland Islands are over 4,700 square miles.
1. Re:Way off by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  They predicted the satellite would start to tumble when it entered the atmosphere, but it didn't. It stayed in its original position and flew much farther.
  Also, it did not fall "over" Falkland Island, more of in vicinity...
2. Re:Way off by Xest · 2013-11-11 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably exactly why you would see it because it means fuck all light pollution and fuck all pollution from emissions.
British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 15:33 · Score: 0

Falkland Islands, or Islas Malvinas, as the Argentine people call them, are disputed territory. British forces usurped the islands from the Argentine authorities in the first half of the 19th century. OK, a stupid military government went to war to try to divert the attention of the Argentine citizens form the internal problems. And thanks to their military defeat democracy finally returned (18 months after the start of the war). But still, Argentina has the right to ask to have them back.
1. Re:British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  "back"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
2. Re:British territory? by Dereck1701 · 2013-11-11 16:07 · Score: 2
  
  "But still, Argentina has the right to ask to have them back."
  Besides being close geographically what claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? At least from what I can find the only time that its population was primarily Argentinian was back around 1774-1811 when the British and Spanish (originally French) settlements were temporarily abandoned (fear of war?) until roughly the 1840s when the British settlements were reestablished. Before the Europeans colonized the islands there may have been some prehistoric settlements and a very short lived occupation by the a Buenos Aires garrison back in 1832 that ended in mutiny but not much else.
3. Re:British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  And the Brits (and Falkland residents) have the right to say "no." Until the Brits took those islands, they were only intermittently occupied, and quite sparsely, by a variety of nations. Argentina may have been the last nation to claim sovereignty over them prior to the Brits taking them, but they never really exercised real sovereignty over them. Besides, possession is 9/10 of the law when it comes to nations holding land, absent opposition possession of superior firepower.
4. Re:British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 18:33 · Score: -1
  
  Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
5. Re:British territory? by Shag · 2013-11-11 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Falkland Islands, or Islas Malvinas, as the Argentine people call them, are disputed territory. British forces usurped the islands from the Argentine authorities in the first half of the 19th century. OK, a stupid military government went to war to try to divert the attention of the Argentine citizens form the internal problems. And thanks to their military defeat democracy finally returned (18 months after the start of the war). But still, Argentina has the right to ask to have them back.
  I dearly hope I'm not the only slashdotter who hangs around the UN, so that someone else can back me up on this.
  Quite often, in the course of a meeting on something-or-other at the UN, subject-matter experts will be brought in for panel presentations.
  Not terribly infrequently, one of the English-speaking experts, not knowing any better, will include a map of whatever (squid fisheries was the last one I personally recall) showing the Falkland Islands.
  *ominous chord*
  The delegate from Argentina will duck out of the room to call his capital.
  The delegate from the UK will do likewise.
  A short time later, the delegate from Argentina will ask for the floor, and read a statement to the effect that the Islas Malvinas rightfully belong to Argentina, and that the UK is bad and wrong and all that. The UK will then be asked if they wish to comment, and will read a statement to the effect that the Falklands have been under UK rule for some time, and that in keeping with its practice of divesting itself of various colonies and possessions around the world, and in keeping with the parts of the UN Charter about non-self-governing territories being helped toward independence, the UK would be delighted to be rid of them, squid and all - if the residents of the Falklands themselves were okay with it, and if the UK could be reasonably assured that granting the Falklands independence would not simply lead to Argentina immediately trying to take over them again.
  And then, the delegates from the UK and Argentina will go back to being the best of friends, because they are after all diplomats and not the least bit personally interested in perpetuating this silly game.
  
  --
  Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
6. Re:British territory? by unitron · 2013-11-11 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Argentina believes that the French claim which was passed on to Spain was passed, in turn, to them as part of their becoming independent from Spain in 1816.
  And it appears that the French claim may have pre-dated the English one by a couple of years if you're going by establishment of settlements instead of "was sailing along one day and found these islands which no one rushed to occupy".
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
7. Re:British territory? by unitron · 2013-11-11 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
  Yeah, they tend to take the high road, all the other roads, all the land next to all of those roads...
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
8. Re:British territory? by Eunuchswear · 2013-11-11 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
  But there were no natives. When the French settled the Îles Malouines in 1764 they were uninhabited.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
9. Re:British territory? by Alioth · 2013-11-11 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  The Falklands had no human population when the British colonised them.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
10. Re:British territory? by Alioth · 2013-11-11 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Argentinians may have the right to ask. But the population that lives there also has the right to self-determination, and they have roundly told the Argentinians to fuck off.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
11. Re:British territory? by Dereck1701 · 2013-11-12 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Thats splitting the hair mighty thin, a couple year difference that occurred almost 200 years ago. Especially when there seemed to be absolutely no interest in the islands until the Europeans began colonizing them.
12. Re:British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  So the Argentinian claim is "Someone else said we could have them."?
  
  As it happens the French agree with Britain, so the claim is even weaker: the guys they're basing the claim on don't even agree with them!
13. Re:British territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
  but a descendent of the conquistadors complaining about the evils of colonialism comes fairly close..
14. Re:British territory? by unitron · 2013-11-12 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but apparently the first Europeans to colonize them were not English, so who does and does not have a valid claim to them isn't prefectly clear.
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
15. Re:British territory? by unitron · 2013-11-12 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Are the opinions of France relevant at this point?
  If they relinquished their rights to Spain in 1766, then what can they say about it now? That they actually had no rights back then and therefore defrauded Spain? Hardly a testament to their credibility.
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
and.... by argStyopa · 2013-11-11 15:52 · Score: 5, Funny

...Argentina immediately claimed that the satellite was, in fact, theirs.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:and.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 01:43 · Score: -1
  
  Slashdot is anglophile
Tinfoil is not suitable for cold climate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:03 · Score: -1

I have to point out that, unless you've been handed that tinfoil hat from your great-grandfather, you're likely wearing aluminum foil. Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know

This is an upgrade notice - We are replacing all original Tinfoil (c) with the much tougher Aluminiumfoil (c)
Our experts has discovered that the original Tinfoil (c) is not suitable to used in extreme cold climate
Tin pest (aka Tin Disease / Tin Plague) is known to happen when Tin is exposed to extremely cold situation, and will turn to dust
Please return your original Tinfoil (c) immediately to your local Tinfoil (c) dealership and exchange for our brain new Aluminiumfoil (c)
Hurry !! Offer while stock lasts ...
It's spelled GOCE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 16:31 · Score: -1

But it's pronounced Goatse
1. Re:It's spelled GOCE by Iskender · 2013-11-12 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, impressively persistent Goatse trolling! I salute you!
  Too bad it's probably more constructive than all the silly nationalist discussion threads.
Falklands are Argentinean territory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-12 04:22 · Score: 0

If someome took your house you are still the owner and the adversary are criminals. Same case with the Malvinas Falklands. They are Argentine territory.
1. Re:Falklands are Argentinean territory by Cederic · 2013-11-12 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  No. They are not. Argentina is no more legitimate a state than the Falklands themselves, and has substantially less capability to defend itself.
  Stop being greedy and lusting after the oil. Or the penguins. Fucking pervert.