Probably because it is even more cost-prohibitive to move somewhere with a higher cost of living.
I live in the DFW Metroplex, the cost of living here is quite low, compared to many other places, and we have gigabit to the home for $105 a month, or 300 meg for $85 a month.
Because when I bought the house I was promised there would be fiber in the ground by the end of 2012. Yeah, that didn't happen.:-/
That sucks... but their "promise" worked, you bought the house, they have their money, and your lack of fiber is not their problem...
I would only move somewhere that had high speed today, right now, that I can hook up before I even move in. I don't believe the "promises" by anyone, too many plans change.
With respect... if you surf Slashdot, how can you live somewhere that has such poor Internet? That would drive me insane.
When I look for a new house, what type of Internet it gets is high on my list of requirements. My wife wants to move further into the countryside, and I'm ok with this, so long as we can still get some type of reliable high speed Internet (50+ megabit would be the bare min)
Yes, all our allies will suck... the problem is Russia and China, who this plane is really aimed at...
Our existing F-16 and F-15s are plenty to fight nations like Iran, what we need the upgrade for is a major conflict with a major power...
The Western media likes to downplay and make fun of Russian and Chinese technology, but there are parts of what they do that are better than we are, and better than the aging F-16/F-15 fleet.
The F-22 Raptor is indeed awesome, but 187 airframes isn't enough to fight a war with and the lead time on production today is so high that you wouldn't likely have time to build more.
If we had 500 F-22s, then the F-35 wouldn't bother me (beyond the cost), because with the F-22 you can make sure you own the skies and have air superiority. The F-35 can't obtain that on its own. Frankly, you're better off with a bunch of F-15s than a bunch of F-35s. F-15Cs to own the skies and F-15Es to bomb the crap out of the bad guys.
You can also buy multiple copies of the F-15 for the cost of each F-35.
Jack of all trades, master of none is a great idea in war... if it's cheap and easy to build, and you can just spam it. The F-35 ain't and you can't.
True, which is why I said "if you don't have numbers on your side".
The Russian T-34 and the US M4 Sherman were great examples of, "good enough just spam the crap out of them".
It often took 8 or 9 M4 Shermans to knock out 1 German Tiger tank. But we often had 20 M4 Shermans for each Tiger, so it worked.
The F-22 ironically has the reverse problem. It is the best at what it does, but 187 of them isn't nearly enough to do anything with, other than perhaps a minor regional conflict. It is our "Tiger Tank", superior to everything, but so rare that if we got involved in a major shooting war, it wouldn't be enough.
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
^ This... and in war, you don't want "average" if you can avoid it, unless you have a massive numbers advantage...
The F-35 is the perfect example of jack of all trades, master of none. That is normally not a good idea in war.
Your causality is backwards. The cost to build each F-35 isn't all that much. What makes it "expensive" is the total development cost divided by a small number made. Same problem the F-22 had. Cost a fortune to design and progress the technology, but each individual airplane cost less than half what their overall cost is, since they only made 187 combat aircraft.
Most of your post is simply wrong information...
Thousands of F-35 planes will be built, for many nations... It is meant to replace a whole lot of airframes, so it isn't going to be a short production run...
The F35 is a lot like a dual sport motorcycle. It can't keep up with the sport bikes (F-22, F-15, F-16) at track days, and it can't keep up with MX bikes (A-10) at the dirt track, but it is awfully good at the 90% of the rest of the time uses.
Actually, it isn't really good at anything, just average at a number of things. Average is not what you want in wartime, you want to be really good, or you have to overcome not being the best with a huge numbers advantage.
Its second big issue is that the Pentagon canceled the engine that was designed to go in it, which had twice the power of the current engine. That is also why it lost VTOL capability. Then they cut the dual engine dogfigter which was proposed after the more powerful version was cut.
What makes you think it lost VTOL? That is still there, they canceled the second OPTION engine, it sure as heck wasn't going to be TWICE THE POWER...
Most of what you understand about the F-35 appears to simply be incorrect information.
Those who refuse to use their imaginations would be better served by FaceBook than Slashdot, since on FB they can find a compatible group of thinkalikes to comfortably reinforce their point of view. Slashdot, at its best, challenges established world views. Which is never comfortable.
Don't be silly, Slashdot is just like Facebook, a collection of people focused on a specific world view...
This site has been pushing the pro-AGW for some time, the bias is clear to anyone paying attention...
It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Would it? Ask yourself... how would you reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions to, say, the 1990 number?
What would it take to get them down there and hold them there, while world population continues to rise?
I don't understand why so many people are against doing it.
I'm not against it, I fully support reasonable changes, such as moving to LED bulbs, requiring car companies to slowly make their cars and trucks use less gas over time, etc.
I just don't believe those changes will make enough of a difference.
The changes that WOULD make enough of a difference aren't going to happen due to human nature. This is not the only concern and issue in the world and the EU, US, etc. aren't all of humanity. Look at the price of oil. It continues to drop. As the US and EU reduce their overall demand for it, as we pump more of it, the price drops.
As the price drops, it becomes easier and cheaper for developing nations to use. We're a planet of 200 or so sovereign nations that don't all agree on stuff. Until the cheap oil, natural gas, and coal are gone, we as a species will keep using them.
Slowing the rate of growth isn't the solution. You'd have to cut the total output by nearly half to stop the temp rise. There is zero chance this is going to happen.
I don't say that because it would be a bad thing, I say it because it is reality.
:) the irony is that in my comments of, "we're not going to change the outcome", I also would say that, "yes, we should conserve, we should reduce our use where we can and where it makes sense".
Looking at human behavior, I fully believe we'll burn every drop of cheap oil that we can find. We as HUMANS will. Maybe the US or EU won't, but somewhere, some humans will.
That being said, it would be better to burn it over 200 years rather than 100 years, it would help the planet absorb it better and slow the rise so we can all better adapt to it.
So yes, we should set vehicle fuel standards higher. Yes we should raise the tax on gas. Yes we should tell people to replace old light bulbs with LEDs. Yes we should tell people to use more efficient HVAC systems.
But, I don't think that we should take such drastic measures so as to upset the apple cart. This is not an asteroid coming to wipe out all of humanity, it is a problem for part of humanity over time, not a world ending event.
Where I have a problem is when the pro-AGW people then say, "well all you rich people have to give crap loads of money to a bunch of poor people". It becomes about redistribution of wealth more than solving anything. It is that factor that causes so much resistance I believe.
the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).
The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm. Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.
So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...
This isn't rocket science...
Let me turn this around... ask yourself why New Orleans was reopened and rebuilt and why not one mile of the city was closed off to homes?
Uh no. No it isn't, at least, not to do a pretty decent job. You just don't give any funding for rebuilding, you prohibit any funding given for other purposes from being used for rebuilding, and you prohibit any disaster relief check recipients from using the money for buying back into their ruined communities. Some people will do it anyway, spend the minimum effort preventing that during the escrow process, some people will slip through but you can catch most of 'em.
You may not be able to stop people from moving back into those neighborhoods, but you sure can avoid spending money on it, at least most of it.
Sure, if you're King and can dictate the rules. Or if we're all Vulcans and make decisions without emotions.
Neither of which is the case.
The primary concerns in the case of New Orleans were racial (oh my god, black people, watch out!). Not long term planning.
It is the perfect example of why we aren't going to do anything about AGW until it is FAR, FAR too late.
That is correct, sooner or later, Earth changes... but for some reason, humans expect, "well now that we have modern civilization, it should all stop for US!"
People die mostly from old age. Therefore there is no such thing as murder. Or illness.
Dumbass.
Call me dumb all you like, but you should use the term on yourself first...
People do mostly die from old age, or more specifically, heart disease, cancer, etc.
While some people die from murder, it is like being concerned about dying from a major storm or global warming. Neither are likely to kill you, similar to murder.
My point is that humans are not causing the rise if it has been going on that long at a steady pace. Even if we're speeding it along a bit, if 90% of the rise is due to natural causes and 10% to human causes, then we're a minor issue.
Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.
Reality: Yes we bloody well can.
We can't do enough to matter...
Or let me put this another way... Ok, yes we COULD, if humanity worked together on stuff...
But considering human nature, we AREN'T going to do anything about it.
There, is that better? Instead of, "we can't", I'm pointing out that, "we won't".
The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.
Ahh, good to know, so CO2 levels world wide are dropping now? Total CO2 output of planet Earth is dropping each year?
Because that is what it would take. I don't much care (nor does the Earth) what any one nation does, or what a local group of people does. The question is, what is all of humanity doing?
BTW, notice that gas is now getting cheaper? That actually causes more of it to be used, it will cushion the bottom of the fall of oil, as people go back to burning it as the price drops. True CO2 reductions won't happen until the base cost of coal, oil, and natural gas becomes more expensive. Until then, we're going to burn it all.
More on the various forms of "we can't stop it". Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.
Ok, I read it... all it says is, "the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of doing something."
And that might be true, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because the people who have to pay for the cost of doing nothing are NOT the same people who have to pay for the cost of doing something.
My point is that the world, the human population, will continue to burn coal, oil, and natural gas at rates the AGW people say is unsustainable, regardless of any other factors, until such time as those resources actually become expensive.
It is a simple understanding of human behavior and the nature of the world as it exists today. Sure, the US and Europe might reduce their overall consumption. Even China may well do the same. But you won't get every nation on Earth to do it, not to the degree required.
From the numbers I've looked at, from NASA, taken at face value, you'd need to cut world-wide CO2 output by almost 50%, and you'd need to do it, more or less, TOMORROW, for it to stop the temp rise below 2 degrees C. That just isn't going to happen.
10 years from now, the world will put out the same, or more CO2 than it puts out this year.
So rather than try and pointlessly fight the change, perhaps we'd be much better off just planning for it. Of course, we won't do that either, because it requires 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year plans, and we largely, as a people, suck at those. Look at New Orleans, we rebuilt that and kept even the areas 7 feet below sea level open. How stupid is that? There is nearly a 100% chance that some of that will flood again in the next 100 years. Why build when you know it will happen again?
Because humans are very short term planners, because we have other forces at work besides just long range planning (in that case, racial concerns over appearing to "shut down black neighborhoods").
Slashdot Mirror
And you are?
The comments being offered about this or that solution are equally useless...
So check a mirror, you might find your comments apply to you as well...
At least I'm being realistic about things, most of the people offering up "solutions" are just dreaming fantasy.
Probably because it is even more cost-prohibitive to move somewhere with a higher cost of living.
I live in the DFW Metroplex, the cost of living here is quite low, compared to many other places, and we have gigabit to the home for $105 a month, or 300 meg for $85 a month.
What more do you want?
Over half of F-15 kills have been achieved by Israeli Air Force pilots.
Since the IAF doesn't fly the A-10, you can safely subtract those kills.
Because when I bought the house I was promised there would be fiber in the ground by the end of 2012. Yeah, that didn't happen. :-/
That sucks... but their "promise" worked, you bought the house, they have their money, and your lack of fiber is not their problem...
I would only move somewhere that had high speed today, right now, that I can hook up before I even move in. I don't believe the "promises" by anyone, too many plans change.
With respect... if you surf Slashdot, how can you live somewhere that has such poor Internet? That would drive me insane.
When I look for a new house, what type of Internet it gets is high on my list of requirements. My wife wants to move further into the countryside, and I'm ok with this, so long as we can still get some type of reliable high speed Internet (50+ megabit would be the bare min)
Yes, all our allies will suck... the problem is Russia and China, who this plane is really aimed at...
Our existing F-16 and F-15s are plenty to fight nations like Iran, what we need the upgrade for is a major conflict with a major power...
The Western media likes to downplay and make fun of Russian and Chinese technology, but there are parts of what they do that are better than we are, and better than the aging F-16/F-15 fleet.
The F-22 Raptor is indeed awesome, but 187 airframes isn't enough to fight a war with and the lead time on production today is so high that you wouldn't likely have time to build more.
If we had 500 F-22s, then the F-35 wouldn't bother me (beyond the cost), because with the F-22 you can make sure you own the skies and have air superiority. The F-35 can't obtain that on its own. Frankly, you're better off with a bunch of F-15s than a bunch of F-35s. F-15Cs to own the skies and F-15Es to bomb the crap out of the bad guys.
You can also buy multiple copies of the F-15 for the cost of each F-35.
Jack of all trades, master of none is a great idea in war... if it's cheap and easy to build, and you can just spam it. The F-35 ain't and you can't.
True, which is why I said "if you don't have numbers on your side".
The Russian T-34 and the US M4 Sherman were great examples of, "good enough just spam the crap out of them".
It often took 8 or 9 M4 Shermans to knock out 1 German Tiger tank. But we often had 20 M4 Shermans for each Tiger, so it worked.
The F-22 ironically has the reverse problem. It is the best at what it does, but 187 of them isn't nearly enough to do anything with, other than perhaps a minor regional conflict. It is our "Tiger Tank", superior to everything, but so rare that if we got involved in a major shooting war, it wouldn't be enough.
In what way is the A-10 worse than the A-7?
I can think of a dozen reasons the F-35 is worse than the A-10, when it comes to lots of roles the F-35 is slated for.
I know if I was a grunt on the ground, I'd damn well rather have an A-10 covering me than an F-35.
Or better yet, FOUR A-10s rather than ONE F-35, since that is at least the running cost difference between them...
The cost of the planes is trivial compared to the 30 year cost to fly and maintain them.
One kill. In decades. One. That's devastating capability? Once, a rubber band killed someone. Therefore a rubber band is a devastating weapon?
How may air-to-air kills do the F-15 and F-16 have in decades? And those aircraft were purpose built to do that job...
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
^ This... and in war, you don't want "average" if you can avoid it, unless you have a massive numbers advantage...
The F-35 is the perfect example of jack of all trades, master of none. That is normally not a good idea in war.
Your causality is backwards. The cost to build each F-35 isn't all that much. What makes it "expensive" is the total development cost divided by a small number made. Same problem the F-22 had. Cost a fortune to design and progress the technology, but each individual airplane cost less than half what their overall cost is, since they only made 187 combat aircraft.
Most of your post is simply wrong information...
Thousands of F-35 planes will be built, for many nations... It is meant to replace a whole lot of airframes, so it isn't going to be a short production run...
The F35 is a lot like a dual sport motorcycle. It can't keep up with the sport bikes (F-22, F-15, F-16) at track days, and it can't keep up with MX bikes (A-10) at the dirt track, but it is awfully good at the 90% of the rest of the time uses.
Actually, it isn't really good at anything, just average at a number of things. Average is not what you want in wartime, you want to be really good, or you have to overcome not being the best with a huge numbers advantage.
Its second big issue is that the Pentagon canceled the engine that was designed to go in it, which had twice the power of the current engine. That is also why it lost VTOL capability. Then they cut the dual engine dogfigter which was proposed after the more powerful version was cut.
What makes you think it lost VTOL? That is still there, they canceled the second OPTION engine, it sure as heck wasn't going to be TWICE THE POWER...
Most of what you understand about the F-35 appears to simply be incorrect information.
My friends who were roaming on AT&T had no issues.
Part of what you pay for with AT&T and Verizon is that they put up extra towers at large events.
Universal Studios and Disney World have multiple AT&T and Verizon towers, inside the park, for just that purpose.
Any time you go to a big event, they'll have towers. They can provide them at outdoor events via trucks with folding towers on the roof, for example.
You pay for it, but their service is really darn good.
Those who refuse to use their imaginations would be better served by FaceBook than Slashdot, since on FB they can find a compatible group of thinkalikes to comfortably reinforce their point of view. Slashdot, at its best, challenges established world views. Which is never comfortable.
Don't be silly, Slashdot is just like Facebook, a collection of people focused on a specific world view...
This site has been pushing the pro-AGW for some time, the bias is clear to anyone paying attention...
It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Would it? Ask yourself... how would you reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions to, say, the 1990 number?
What would it take to get them down there and hold them there, while world population continues to rise?
I don't understand why so many people are against doing it.
I'm not against it, I fully support reasonable changes, such as moving to LED bulbs, requiring car companies to slowly make their cars and trucks use less gas over time, etc.
I just don't believe those changes will make enough of a difference.
The changes that WOULD make enough of a difference aren't going to happen due to human nature. This is not the only concern and issue in the world and the EU, US, etc. aren't all of humanity. Look at the price of oil. It continues to drop. As the US and EU reduce their overall demand for it, as we pump more of it, the price drops.
As the price drops, it becomes easier and cheaper for developing nations to use. We're a planet of 200 or so sovereign nations that don't all agree on stuff. Until the cheap oil, natural gas, and coal are gone, we as a species will keep using them.
Slowing the rate of growth isn't the solution. You'd have to cut the total output by nearly half to stop the temp rise. There is zero chance this is going to happen.
I don't say that because it would be a bad thing, I say it because it is reality.
:) the irony is that in my comments of, "we're not going to change the outcome", I also would say that, "yes, we should conserve, we should reduce our use where we can and where it makes sense".
Looking at human behavior, I fully believe we'll burn every drop of cheap oil that we can find. We as HUMANS will. Maybe the US or EU won't, but somewhere, some humans will.
That being said, it would be better to burn it over 200 years rather than 100 years, it would help the planet absorb it better and slow the rise so we can all better adapt to it.
So yes, we should set vehicle fuel standards higher. Yes we should raise the tax on gas. Yes we should tell people to replace old light bulbs with LEDs. Yes we should tell people to use more efficient HVAC systems.
But, I don't think that we should take such drastic measures so as to upset the apple cart. This is not an asteroid coming to wipe out all of humanity, it is a problem for part of humanity over time, not a world ending event.
Where I have a problem is when the pro-AGW people then say, "well all you rich people have to give crap loads of money to a bunch of poor people". It becomes about redistribution of wealth more than solving anything. It is that factor that causes so much resistance I believe.
The lowest city on that list has less than 300 people living in it and it is hundreds of miles inland from the ocean... :)
We keep building right next to the ocean and then are shocked when some of those homes and people are destroyed/killed.
Film at 11...
the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).
The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.
So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...
This isn't rocket science...
Let me turn this around... ask yourself why New Orleans was reopened and rebuilt and why not one mile of the city was closed off to homes?
Uh no. No it isn't, at least, not to do a pretty decent job. You just don't give any funding for rebuilding, you prohibit any funding given for other purposes from being used for rebuilding, and you prohibit any disaster relief check recipients from using the money for buying back into their ruined communities. Some people will do it anyway, spend the minimum effort preventing that during the escrow process, some people will slip through but you can catch most of 'em.
You may not be able to stop people from moving back into those neighborhoods, but you sure can avoid spending money on it, at least most of it.
Sure, if you're King and can dictate the rules. Or if we're all Vulcans and make decisions without emotions.
Neither of which is the case.
The primary concerns in the case of New Orleans were racial (oh my god, black people, watch out!). Not long term planning.
It is the perfect example of why we aren't going to do anything about AGW until it is FAR, FAR too late.
^ You, sir, deserve a mod up...
That is correct, sooner or later, Earth changes... but for some reason, humans expect, "well now that we have modern civilization, it should all stop for US!"
That is silly.
People die mostly from old age. Therefore there is no such thing as murder. Or illness.
Dumbass.
Call me dumb all you like, but you should use the term on yourself first...
People do mostly die from old age, or more specifically, heart disease, cancer, etc.
While some people die from murder, it is like being concerned about dying from a major storm or global warming. Neither are likely to kill you, similar to murder.
My point is that humans are not causing the rise if it has been going on that long at a steady pace. Even if we're speeding it along a bit, if 90% of the rise is due to natural causes and 10% to human causes, then we're a minor issue.
Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.
Reality: Yes we bloody well can.
We can't do enough to matter...
Or let me put this another way... Ok, yes we COULD, if humanity worked together on stuff...
But considering human nature, we AREN'T going to do anything about it.
There, is that better? Instead of, "we can't", I'm pointing out that, "we won't".
The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.
Ahh, good to know, so CO2 levels world wide are dropping now? Total CO2 output of planet Earth is dropping each year?
Because that is what it would take. I don't much care (nor does the Earth) what any one nation does, or what a local group of people does. The question is, what is all of humanity doing?
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/...
Looks to me like they are climbing.
BTW, notice that gas is now getting cheaper? That actually causes more of it to be used, it will cushion the bottom of the fall of oil, as people go back to burning it as the price drops. True CO2 reductions won't happen until the base cost of coal, oil, and natural gas becomes more expensive. Until then, we're going to burn it all.
More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.
Ok, I read it... all it says is, "the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of doing something."
And that might be true, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because the people who have to pay for the cost of doing nothing are NOT the same people who have to pay for the cost of doing something.
My point is that the world, the human population, will continue to burn coal, oil, and natural gas at rates the AGW people say is unsustainable, regardless of any other factors, until such time as those resources actually become expensive.
It is a simple understanding of human behavior and the nature of the world as it exists today. Sure, the US and Europe might reduce their overall consumption. Even China may well do the same. But you won't get every nation on Earth to do it, not to the degree required.
From the numbers I've looked at, from NASA, taken at face value, you'd need to cut world-wide CO2 output by almost 50%, and you'd need to do it, more or less, TOMORROW, for it to stop the temp rise below 2 degrees C. That just isn't going to happen.
10 years from now, the world will put out the same, or more CO2 than it puts out this year.
So rather than try and pointlessly fight the change, perhaps we'd be much better off just planning for it. Of course, we won't do that either, because it requires 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year plans, and we largely, as a people, suck at those. Look at New Orleans, we rebuilt that and kept even the areas 7 feet below sea level open. How stupid is that? There is nearly a 100% chance that some of that will flood again in the next 100 years. Why build when you know it will happen again?
Because humans are very short term planners, because we have other forces at work besides just long range planning (in that case, racial concerns over appearing to "shut down black neighborhoods").
Are you calling me a right-winger?
I believe in single-payer health care, don't box me in. :)
---
In any case, the sea has been rising for thousands of years, so of course it will continue to rise, the only real debate is the speed of that rise.
Oh, it will be noticed.
Perhaps it will be... maybe all that you say is correct...
The real issue is that some people take that and then say, "now you have to give other people lots of your money to do something about it".
Except, all that money won't do anything about it, either way. Regardless of your take on AGW, it is going to happen or it isn't.
We aren't going to, as humanity, stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas. We just aren't.
So if they cause AGW, then we're going to get it.