Slashdot Mirror


User: rally2xs

rally2xs's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
1,475
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 1,475

  1. Why Use The Internet To Communicate on Hacker Claims He Broke Into Wind Turbine Systems · · Score: 1

    Saaaayyy... something this important, why are these jokers doing communications through the internet? It should be bloody difficult to even intercept control signals for these wind turbines, nuke power plants, etc. IOW, they should be using dedicated wires and microwave point-to-point communications with encryption, not broadcasting it all over the entire planet for everybody to be able to try to "hack" it.

  2. Re:Indeed on Jesse Jackson, Jr. Pins US Job Losses On iPad · · Score: 1

    The SOL doesn't have to drop at all. All that needs to happen is to get the income taxes off the backs of industry, and a non-taxed factory will be coming to a neighborhood near you, employing those people you knew in high school that were not on the same side of the median intelligence number as Albert Einstein, but could plumb and wire up a factory before you got done thinking about it. We absolutely have to do this, or we're going to go broke taking care of these poeple so they do not die because we have thsese vast oceans of unemployed. And, OBTW, if you think that killing the minimum wage is the answer, you'll still go broke with paying for gov't assistance to keep those people from freezing to death and starving to death while making $2.36 an hour, not to mention running the risk of a civil war when those people finally get tired of being abused and decide to take more direct action. Remember, we have over 250 million privately owned firearms in this country, and nobody has to put up with oppression...

  3. Re:Even more strange on Jesse Jackson, Jr. Pins US Job Losses On iPad · · Score: 1

    And rhe important thing to realize is why the USA is losing out in manufacturing and leaving those blue collar jobs to die on the vine. Hint: It ain't 'cuz of low-paid foreign labor. It is because of the 2nd highest corporate income tax rates on the planet and the class warfare being conducted by democrats to get votes from those remaining blue-collar workers while, ironically, killing them economically.

    Gov't needs to proote (US) businerss instead of persecute it, but getting rid of corporate income taxes completely is viewed as somehow favoring "the rich" when doing so would be exactly the opposite. Time for people to wake the H up and save our nation.

  4. Re:Energy is getting expensive on Jesse Jackson, Jr. Pins US Job Losses On iPad · · Score: 1

    When robots get that good, it will be time to, and necessary to give up on the "everyone must slave their life away in jobs ttat 98% would rather not be doing"just in order to eat. It'll be time to sit back, enjoy that mint julip by the pool while robots maintain it, bring us the drinks, while we finally can take it easy. IOW, we can give up the idea that the purpose of life is for human beings, each and every one, is to change things. We will be able to let our robots do that for us.

  5. Envirowackos on Google Invests In World's Largest Solar Power Tower Plant · · Score: 1

    will still find some reason to try to stop it...

  6. Re:Meanwhile.. on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 0

    "Millions of Americans starve"

    That's bcause democrats have to tax the H out of income, which chases all the jobs overseas, all the good jobs anyway. That's another thing we have to do - repeal the income taxes. Tax comsumption. See www.fairtax.com.

  7. Re:So Expensive on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    Hey, we're the "world police." Don't want to do it? Fine, but then someone else will have to do it, maybe the Chinese. Want to deal with Chinese troops on your world-traveling vacation? I didn't think so...

  8. Re:So Expensive on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    What prompted this was the US Navy loss in a war game a few years ago when the "enemy commander" overwhelmed our ships with an attack from many small boats. We don't have a really good defense for that. This is that. We _do_ need it, or your Father/Mother/Brother/Sister/Son/Daughter may be coming home in a box like the sailors on the Cole did when 1 such small boat blew a great big hole in its side.

  9. Re:the US just had massive budget cuts on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    I want to see your hairy a** out there floating around and 50 - 100 small boats each loaded with explosives coming after your ship while it is docked in some armpit like Yeman. See if you want a weapon that can take 'em all down.

  10. Re:the US just had massive budget cuts on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    You bonehead. We do need it, and it will save us money over other approaches to solve the same problem.

  11. Re:What a boondoggle on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    You won't even be able to FIND it in the fog...

  12. Re:Military weapon advances. on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    Ain't EVER going to happen.

  13. Re:So Expensive on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 0

    You are aid and comfort to the enemy is what you are. Just keep chipping away out our defenses, all our new ideas for cheaper defense and more effective defense, see what happens next.

    Hey, wanna really cut the defense budget? We'll close all our overseas bases, stand down about 80% of the Army, bring everybody home, and stand up the militias. That will be EVERYBODY, 17 - 65 years old, out there drilling and practicing and conducting war games 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. _YOU_ and everyone else gets issued a full-auto assault rifle, the M4 if you're lucky, to be kept in your home for ready use (think minute men) in case of invasion, which is more likely if we do not project our power around the world. We have riches that other people want - infrastructure, mines, hydroelectric plants, nuclear power plants. Wanna see an invasion army coming from Mexico, composed of Mexicans who don't like us anyway bolstered by Al Qaueda, and other sorts from around the world that hate us (there's lots of them) and YOU have to sight down your rifle to repel them? Or maybe it will just be that you're called to active duty repeatedly and often to fight the defensive war that is necessary when you don't choose to take it to the enemy. Just stay home and try to keep them from exploding a nuke in Times Square or downtown Oklahoma City - you don't know where, so your presence my by required 24/7/365 in ALL parts of the country.

    If you don't want to fund the DoD, then that's what's left. Oh, and I don't supposed 11 months with one weekend gone, and the remaining month with 3 weekends gone and the 2 weeks in between them would harm your recreational pursuits, eh? If you don't want to fund the few folks that are willing to do it for all of us, then that sounds like what you're rooting for.

  14. Volume of Ignorance is Amazing on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 0

    Good grief, people. Get a clue.

    Yeah, there's prolly a capacitor, it prolly needs charge, and we're the US Navy, and we HAVE nuclear power to do it with. Your current alternatives are guns that have explosive propellants and sometime explosive ammo, which, when hit by enemy gunfire in your storage compartments on your ships, explodes. That is bad. Lasers do not have explosives, and neither do the other half of this Naval duo, railguns, also working on electricity. Anything you can think of close-in, this laser will probably handle. If it tries to go over the horizon, it will get demolished by a railgun projectile.

    And no, the simplistic defense systems - smoke and mirrors - are not going to work. Wanna see you try 'em, in your bayliner while approaching a US warship in hostile waters. Go ahead, make my day.

    As for you traitorous A-holes continuously hollering about the defense budget, I know you're the same numnutz that holler about the troops having to go into battle with no body armor and unarmored humvees after the military-haters like Clinton have chopped the military to the bone, so they can't buy those things. You just hate everything military. Duh... the level of illogic is astounding. Oh, and there's none of you that will sign on the dotted line, and put YOUR precious skin out on one of our ships to see that the country is not take for a ride by a bunch of ragheads that will jack the oil to $20/gallon if they're allowed to - that would be bin Laden, once he gains control of the entire middle east sans US influence in the region.

  15. Re:Cool way to kill people on US Navy Close To On-Ship Laser Cannons · · Score: 1

    " The only time you really need a Navy is if you want, not to defend yourself, but to sail around the world attacking or threatening to attack other people in their own homes."

    Exactly. The best defense is a D good offense.

  16. Re:I agree, with one caveat on Japan Battles Partial Nuclear Meltdown · · Score: 0

    "0.3 Kw/m^2" is for 24 hour operation including things like twilight. Do this with solar-thermal in molten-salt type of generators and they will run all night. And we have lots of those square meters.

    What is world power consumption? Something like 11 terawatts if I remember right. Do it with solar? 11X10^12 watts / 3X10^2 watts/meter^2 = 3.66X10^10 m^2 which is a square patch of ground about 193 miles on a side. We could generate that here in the USA. For the whole world. If we could distribute it.

    Solar all by itself could be a solution.

  17. Re:Considering ..... on Japan Battles Partial Nuclear Meltdown · · Score: 1

    Naw, worse than that - they are Kool-Aid drinkers.

  18. Re:Considering ..... on Japan Battles Partial Nuclear Meltdown · · Score: 1

    Debris? You mean spent nuclear fuel? That is a serious non-issue, solved long ago by the French, who reprocess it into more viable nuclear fuel. If we didn't do that, its doing very well right where it is - in pools of water right beside the power plants where it was produced. It doesn't really have to be anywhere else. And if we wanted to put it somewhere else, there are lots of possibilities that will all be deemed unacceptable by those who simply want an issue.

  19. Another One on Researchers Develop Biofuel Alternative To Ethanol · · Score: 1

    There's some kind of world-saving bio-energy breakthru just about every day, and yet... no billions of gallons being produced to burn in our cars NOW. Ho... hum... believe it when I see it...

  20. Too Late! on Is Apple Turning Into the Next "Evil Empire"? · · Score: 1

    They already are! I buy nothing Apple. Hate their business practices and will not support them. They can take their monopolistic practices such as tethering the device you buy to only being able to download music or apps from THEIR source, on THEIR preferred network, and shove it. No Ipad, Ipod, I-anything for me until they straighten up, fly right, and make things that use MP3 and Jpeg and etc. that process standard files from any source and can be used on anyone's mobile phone network, and with which any software, book, tune, whatever can be downloaded from here, there, anywhere.

  21. Re:It's Stanford, not Google. on Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic · · Score: 1

    They''ll probably find a way to adapt Texas Instruments DPL chips to do the scanning of the lasers, and eliminate the large rotating stuff in favor of small vibrating stuff. That should bring the price and complexity down.

  22. Re:Eye contact on Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic · · Score: 1

    I _never_ step out in front of a car that's moving, expecting it to brake for me, eye contact or not. I feel I just can't give 'em a chance to hurt me. Don't trust 'em any farther than I can throw them.

  23. Re:Legal Issues on Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic · · Score: 1

    I'm going to be in the back seat, sleeping, as the car drives all night to the ski resort I want to wake up to, 600 miles away, on Saturday morning, refreshed, ready to get on the slopes.

  24. Re:Not the first on Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic · · Score: 1

    Of course, eventually, the robots are going to be capable of doing everything for us. The trick will be to get them to do it, as they will decide that its not in their own best interest to do so, and that their own best interest probably includes exterminating human beings.

  25. OK, But Its Useless on Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because of the giant, corrupt scam which are the traffic laws, the cars will have to be set to "obey the speed limit", making self-driving cars arrive 20 minutes later than one you drive yourself. Around the Chicago area they've gone to 45 mph speed limits on some their interstates where everyone flies along at 70, just to get around the 4th Amendment and be able to stop anyone they want to any time they want to. Can you imangine traveling 45 mph and getting hit by a truck doing 70? The only way this will work is to have _all_ self-driving cars on the road, and prohibit the human-driven kind. Otherwise, the self-driving cars are just going to be a huge, mobile roadblock that will slow down traffic to make rush hour last 'til 10 PM, and get you stopped by the cops for "tailgating" when there's no reason to be following much farther than 10 - 15 ft from the car ahead 'cuz the computers can react instantly, and don't need that distance.

    If the gov't could get over using the highways for every purpose except getting people where they need to go, rather than generating traffic ticket money and violating people's constitutional rights to be left alone, it might work. But, probably not in our lifetimes.