Ya sorry, I only have a degree in physics. What do I know.
ummmm..... theory? Which is why they don't throw in Engineering degrees for free to anyone with a degree in Physics? Just a guess.
I'm not disputing or supporting any of the other logic in the arguments above, and I have nothing but respect for Physicists (my dad is an Astronomer), but there I beleve there is a very good reason Engineering is its own field (or fields, rather).
In fact, KDE and GNOME both break the UNIXy way of thinking, which is: make a tiny little component that does exactly one job, which is such a small job that about all people can do to improve that program is to make it run faster. Now make it easy to put those components together in interesting ways.
You just made it obvious that you have never taken any time at all to look at how KDE does things at all. Practically all of KDE is little tiny components doing small jobs working together.
Konqueror, for example, doesn't actually do anything itself except for provide a framework. All the functions such as web-browsing, ftp, etc. are provided by components (kparts). The protocols such as ftp, http, sftp, etc. are all provided by discrete 'i/o slaves' which are then re-used by all KDE programs which need them, so that if improvements are made to e.g. the KDE implementation of the ftp protocol, then every single program immediately sees the benefit. If someone adds a new protocol then it is immediately available in the file open/save dialog of every single KDE program as well as in Konqueror. This is what happened with the 'fish' protocol for file-browsing via ssh logins; It was originally written as an add-on of a couple hundred kb of source-code (back in the 2.x days of KDE; it's standard now) and once installed it immediately made it possible to transparently open from and save to remote servers where the user has a simple ssh login (no sftp necessary) from every KDE program, as well as copying, etc. via Konqueror. No re-compile of the apps was necessary.
And this sort of thing is prevalent throughout KDE. Maybe you should actually look at KDE architecture before you make such sweeping statements.
Not to be contrary, but where exactly do you get at least 1,000,000,000,000 people?
Since when does "millions upon millions" mean millions times millions? It's just a synonym for "millions on millions" which would have to mean "millions plus millions". That makes >4,000,000 in my book.
Why do I like it? because if I want to copy a folder in a browser-type file manager, I have to select the files/folders, press Ctrl-C, try to remember exactly how many times I need to press the 'Back' button to get back to the folder I want to copy the files into, and press Ctrl-V to past the files.
Not in Konqueror. There I just hit Shift-Ctrl-L (not sure if this was the default keyboard shortcut since I've been using it so long and have customized quite a few of them) to split the window into two vertical panes and navigate one of the windows to the destination or source depending on where I am. Then I hit Shift-Ctrl-R to close the extra pain again when I'm done. If two panes aren't enough I can hit Shift-Ctrl-L or Shift-Ctrl-H to split any of those into as many sub-panes as I want. Heck I can even open a terminal emulator with F7 which can be linked to any of those panes (i.e. follows the cwd of that pane) and which accepts dragged files or folders as parameters for clt's.
And don't tell me that that's "just like in Windows".
Slashdot announced an expected 10% loss in page views once the SCO case is wrapped up. VA Investors are looking for a new company to rally the slashdot readers against...
Most companies , given the chance, would love it if spam/popups/whatever worked and didnt irritate the living shit out folks. *however* that does NOT mean the same-said company knows full well it pisses off customers and therefore won't go near it with a ten foot pole.
I consider myself to be quite an 'anti-corporate' person, in the sense that I think we need to drastically reign in the privilege and influence of corporations in modern society. And the legal anthropomorphization of companies has gone too far, even - and this is the point of my post - to the point where even fellow anti-corporates do it.
'Love'? 'Know'? Come on people this is fuzzy thinking at best. I know it's sometimes just in the interest of simplification, but it leads to over-simplification.
Remember SCO and the antics of its leadership: doesn't make any sense if you think about some mythical 'wants' and 'hates' of SCO itself, since it sounds like some schizophrenic suicidal psychopath. Yet, as soon as you think of certain members of the board, who might want to cash out and let the company sink then it makes sense again.
The same goes with 'good' companies to some extent (i.e. the actions of L.L. Bean now), however that's always when some 'clear-thinking' individual shows up and points out that the company is 'only interested in profit', as if it's patently impossible that anyone in the management might have morals or standards. Or worse there's the implication that -- since the company is just this lumbering raving profit-hungry beast -- it will only ever do something good if it's prodded with the profit stick.
People: companies are abstract *things*... led by people. It's very rarely one single person, and if it is, they are very rarely without some kind of oversight. The only thing the company itself represents behaviorwise is sometimes a certain 'culture' that is common there. But never forget: that culture is a product of the people and their history in the company not some magical aura the permeates the company, which is why if you let enough people go, or change the leadership drastically and/or at many levels the company can transform itself (see IBM -> IBM, or SCO -> SCO, or... anyone remember the original EA? when the 'A' meant something?).
Sorry for the rant. Frankly the parent it far from being the worst at this, but I just wanted to get that off my chest:-)
The threats from the senator saying to park an aircraft carrier off France. I did not mean to intimate that any of the slashdot contributors made any threats, and apolgise for any offence.
Fair enough:-) In that case I agree with your original statement entirely. It was the 'you' which I thought was directed at me in this thread, instead of the more general 'all of you who say such things'.
It takes a cool head for you to come back with your explanation and an apology instead of escalating to a flamewar; I tip my hat.
The US doesn't have any anti-mining capacity worth their salt.
Now there's some thinking! That's the most realistic statement I've heard in this thread. Everyone else going on about some super weapon, and you have to go and come up with a 'boring' alternative which would just... work.;-)
And since when has talking about going to war against a democratic, peaceful, and nuke bearing western european country been a sane thing to talk about in the USA?
Who said anything about sane?:-P But Bush still has a few months left. Give him a chance. Still the dick-size contest started because killjoe quoted the (morally and politically braindead) comment from Krauthammer about parking the carrier. I was just responding to the technically braindead idea that such a problem would be solved with some magic missile. That's 'Mission Accomplished'-type thinking.;-)
For some reason it reminds me of the quote: "Debating unix flavors in the context of anything Microsoft is like talking about which ice cream flavor tastes least like sawdust with turpentine sauce."
Still: fleets, right? Not some super weapon, but superior deployment of forces by the British captain no doubt. I'm not saying it can't happen, just not because of the 'all-powerful' Exocet or the like. I'd be interested in a link, but since you're AC you won't see my reply probably. I do believe you, I'd just like to read the story out of curiosity.
Still pathetic, if there were any subs involved... nah, probably just those damn skimmers;-)
Yeah. sure. maybe. Look I'm open to the idea that it's a really bad-ass ship, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that the E.U. has a stronger naval presence than the U.S.
I admit my information is a good 10 years out of date, but I just remember running training exercises on a 25-year-old boomer (that's a fat pig of a missile sub, not a fast-attack) and running circles around 3 surface ships including one which was specialized for ASW. I mean a submarine has an immense advantage just by being underwater. The entire acoustic characteristics of most areas of the oceans favor those who are underwater; many places will literally refract most sound down to the depth where subs like to hang out meaning the sub's own sound is likewise staying down there. There are only 2 ways for ships to listen below the layer: 1. Drop a buoy of some sort. That involves flying a plane all over the place mining the ocean with those things and -- unless they already have a contact -- is very hit and miss. 2. Trail a hydrophone down deep via a cable or telescoping arm of some sort. That requires going slow and/or is loud (from the water rushing over the protrusion).
So while your baby looks good on paper, I'd wait to see exercises with those things in action. I assume it would only ever be exercises anyways, though I've long stopped underestimating Bush's capacity for being a complete asshole:-(
As for overconfidence, I think you might be getting the kneejerk reaction (common in Europe for example) that I'm just another American who thinks the U.S does no wrong or somesuch. Believe me I know there many countries who do many things better than the U.S. Making peace, for example. Eliminating the death penalty, for another. Universal health coverage is my favorite (I live in Germany, and to you Germans who complain all the time, like about the new 10 Euro 'Praxisgebühr': You don't appreciate how good you - and I - have it). But... one thing the U.S. is damn good at is making war. This is not pride, or overconfidence. It's observation. If there's a new way to kill people, I'm sure my compatriots will quickly become quite expert at it:-/
Still makes my point that the Exocet is a pretty stupid example of something that would make a carrier visit "brief". Like I said you would need nukes and of the ones you link to only the ASMP SRAM seems to be a tactical nuke (Ballistic missiles against a carrier sitting off your coast?). Its range of 250 km. is not much better as far as an aircraft carrier goes. It still needs to close to within range against a screen of hostile fighters, and counter-missiles fired from the various cruisers deployed around the carrier.
Look, this is just an intellectual exercise since we are still talking about 2 countries which after all the rhetoric, etc. are *allies*. Nevertheless, a carrier group is a very tough nut to crack, and no amount of links to single weapons is even relevant in the discussion. Such a conflict would revolve around fleets and would be anything but 'brief' -- at least not on the side of the carrier group...
Exactly!! Are you listening my fellow Americans? That is representative of almost every German I know (me: American living in Germany. But I speak fluent German, so they don't always spot me). I'm sure it's the case with most French. The Germans are anything *but* anti-American. Most of them are still very grateful for things like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift, and they cheered and fawned last time Clinton visited. It's Bush, his government, and its policies, that they hate. That's all.
If we pull our heads out of our asses and vote him out (maybe some remedial voter training in Florida?), then I think you'll find a huge change in attitude coming across the Atlantic. The Middle East is different. Bush has probably set us back at least a decade or more there as far as public opinion goes. The terrorist recruiting camps probably rub their hands in glee every time Bush speaks:-( He's a living breathing recruitment poster for people pissed at the States.
Don't the US have a hugedforeign trade deficit? I.e. they actually import much more than they export? So in a sense you could say that the rest of the world already did.
In fact that's been the case for most of my life, I think. However, I have a personal theory that the U.S. exports something a bit more ephemeral than products:
Our appetites and whims. Yes, you read that right. I truly think that the immense *hunger* of the U.S. consumer (pun intended) translates into a power over the world market which influences companies around the world to cater to those desires. Then, since it's more efficient to market your appeal to a somewhat uniform market, those companies turn around and sell things to their own compatriots in an 'American' way.
This is just my little theory about this subject. I could be wildly off base, but it rings true to me.
You want to do what? Park an aircraft carrier just off the coast of the country that invented Exocet ?
My goodness. That'd certainly be a sight worth seeing! Brief, but worth seeing.
Brief? Sorry, no. I'm not one of those knee-jerk "America will kick your ass!" type of Americans but... no. And to the moderators, no it's not insightful. Interesting? Yes.
Your link mentions that it managed to heavily damage a frigate. There's a world of difference between a frigate and an aircraft carrier. From my tour of duty on submarines I can tell you that a frigate of that sort is considered to be a one-torpedo target; one torpedo will literally crack a frigate right in half. Battleships and aircraft carriers nominally need at least 2-3. And that's assuming you even get in range: 65 km? ROFLMAO.
An aircraft carrier is never alone. It is almost always accompanied by at least 2 attack subs and several surface ships ranging 150+ km. around the carrier. No surface ship is getting within even 200 km. of that carrier let alone 65 km. And submarines wouldn't have an easy time of it either. At best it would be a suicide mission (since once they fire, they'll have 2 fast-attacks, a swarm of P-3's, and an ASW cruiser on their ass) and they'd be likely to cause more damage if they simply use their torpedos, or better yet ram it at full speed.
Or, as other posters have pointed out, use nukes. A tomahawk with a tactical nuke and its 1100 km. range would do the trick, assuming the French have them:-P
Don't get caught up with this idea that just because the U.S. is behaving like a bunch of idiots in Iraq, and that guerilla tactics work against a modern army when it's the occupying force among an increasingly hostile populace that that translates to the ocean. Since the break-up of the USSR there is no one (or not even everyone together) who can challenge the U.S. on the seas. Period. That's why the Navy has turned into nothing more than a troop and munitions delivery service: A victim of its own success.
I'll just respond to you though this applies to a good number of the posts in the thread. I must be a mutant, since I seem to be the only one I know who found Monsters Inc. to be the *worst* movie Pixar has made so far. I am even a Billy Crystal fan, but the movie just felt too much like any other Billy Crystal movie, with a bunch of standard formulas for animated flicks.
For me Monsters Inc was the most child-oriented (simplistic) of the bunch. That's not to say that Pixar's worst isn't still above average, but I was disappointed compared to the other movies Pixar had produced, and relieved to see Nemo raise the standard again.
No no no. All they need to do is rot-13 it, slap a copyright on it, and sue the government under the DMCA when they use the decoded version as evidence!
Well, to be fair, there is also discussion going in that direction (see my other post on stealth vs. sonar)... but come on - Slashdot has always been a place where anti-MS sentiment was quite at home; or at least since I started reading it which *appears* to be somewhat earlier than you - and no I usually don't pull the low user number card, but it isn't entirely irrelevant to this off-topic topic. Of course, I was only joking anyway;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ya sorry, I only have a degree in physics. What do I know.
ummmm..... theory? Which is why they don't throw in Engineering degrees for free to anyone with a degree in Physics? Just a guess.
I'm not disputing or supporting any of the other logic in the arguments above, and I have nothing but respect for Physicists (my dad is an Astronomer), but there I beleve there is a very good reason Engineering is its own field (or fields, rather).
-chris
You don't have to be an upholsterer to know that the spring sticking up out of the chair hurts your ass. :-) This one really made me grin.
-chris
In fact, KDE and GNOME both break the UNIXy way of thinking, which is: make a tiny little component that does exactly one job, which is such a small job that about all people can do to improve that program is to make it run faster. Now make it easy to put those components together in interesting ways.
You just made it obvious that you have never taken any time at all to look at how KDE does things at all. Practically all of KDE is little tiny components doing small jobs working together.
Konqueror, for example, doesn't actually do anything itself except for provide a framework. All the functions such as web-browsing, ftp, etc. are provided by components (kparts). The protocols such as ftp, http, sftp, etc. are all provided by discrete 'i/o slaves' which are then re-used by all KDE programs which need them, so that if improvements are made to e.g. the KDE implementation of the ftp protocol, then every single program immediately sees the benefit. If someone adds a new protocol then it is immediately available in the file open/save dialog of every single KDE program as well as in Konqueror. This is what happened with the 'fish' protocol for file-browsing via ssh logins; It was originally written as an add-on of a couple hundred kb of source-code (back in the 2.x days of KDE; it's standard now) and once installed it immediately made it possible to transparently open from and save to remote servers where the user has a simple ssh login (no sftp necessary) from every KDE program, as well as copying, etc. via Konqueror. No re-compile of the apps was necessary.
And this sort of thing is prevalent throughout KDE. Maybe you should actually look at KDE architecture before you make such sweeping statements.
-chris
Not to be contrary, but where exactly do you get at least 1,000,000,000,000 people?
Since when does "millions upon millions" mean millions times millions? It's just a synonym for "millions on millions" which would have to mean "millions plus millions". That makes >4,000,000 in my book.
-chris
Why do I like it? because if I want to copy a folder in a browser-type file manager, I have to select the files/folders, press Ctrl-C, try to remember exactly how many times I need to press the 'Back' button to get back to the folder I want to copy the files into, and press Ctrl-V to past the files.
Not in Konqueror. There I just hit Shift-Ctrl-L (not sure if this was the default keyboard shortcut since I've been using it so long and have customized quite a few of them) to split the window into two vertical panes and navigate one of the windows to the destination or source depending on where I am. Then I hit Shift-Ctrl-R to close the extra pain again when I'm done. If two panes aren't enough I can hit Shift-Ctrl-L or Shift-Ctrl-H to split any of those into as many sub-panes as I want. Heck I can even open a terminal emulator with F7 which can be linked to any of those panes (i.e. follows the cwd of that pane) and which accepts dragged files or folders as parameters for clt's.
And don't tell me that that's "just like in Windows".
Cheers,
Chris
Slashdot announced an expected 10% loss in page views once the SCO case is wrapped up. VA Investors are looking for a new company to rally the slashdot readers against...
-chris
Most companies , given the chance, would love it if spam/popups/whatever worked and didnt irritate the living shit out folks. *however* that does NOT mean the same-said company knows full well it pisses off customers and therefore won't go near it with a ten foot pole.
:-)
I consider myself to be quite an 'anti-corporate' person, in the sense that I think we need to drastically reign in the privilege and influence of corporations in modern society. And the legal anthropomorphization of companies has gone too far, even - and this is the point of my post - to the point where even fellow anti-corporates do it.
'Love'? 'Know'? Come on people this is fuzzy thinking at best. I know it's sometimes just in the interest of simplification, but it leads to over-simplification.
Remember SCO and the antics of its leadership: doesn't make any sense if you think about some mythical 'wants' and 'hates' of SCO itself, since it sounds like some schizophrenic suicidal psychopath. Yet, as soon as you think of certain members of the board, who might want to cash out and let the company sink then it makes sense again.
The same goes with 'good' companies to some extent (i.e. the actions of L.L. Bean now), however that's always when some 'clear-thinking' individual shows up and points out that the company is 'only interested in profit', as if it's patently impossible that anyone in the management might have morals or standards. Or worse there's the implication that -- since the company is just this lumbering raving profit-hungry beast -- it will only ever do something good if it's prodded with the profit stick.
People: companies are abstract *things*... led by people. It's very rarely one single person, and if it is, they are very rarely without some kind of oversight. The only thing the company itself represents behaviorwise is sometimes a certain 'culture' that is common there. But never forget: that culture is a product of the people and their history in the company not some magical aura the permeates the company, which is why if you let enough people go, or change the leadership drastically and/or at many levels the company can transform itself (see IBM -> IBM, or SCO -> SCO, or... anyone remember the original EA? when the 'A' meant something?).
Sorry for the rant. Frankly the parent it far from being the worst at this, but I just wanted to get that off my chest
-chris
The threats from the senator saying to park an aircraft carrier off France. I did not mean to intimate that any of the slashdot contributors made any threats, and apolgise for any offence.
:-) In that case I agree with your original statement entirely. It was the 'you' which I thought was directed at me in this thread, instead of the more general 'all of you who say such things'.
Fair enough
It takes a cool head for you to come back with your explanation and an apology instead of escalating to a flamewar; I tip my hat.
-chris
The US doesn't have any anti-mining capacity worth their salt.
;-)
Now there's some thinking! That's the most realistic statement I've heard in this thread. Everyone else going on about some super weapon, and you have to go and come up with a 'boring' alternative which would just... work.
-chris
I find the childish threats against France both laughable and Nazi.
Oh, and thank you for invoking Godwin's Law. I officially declare this thread: dead.
-chris
I find the childish threats against France both laughable and Nazi. Attack them and they will give you a free one way ticket to the stone age.
Sigh. You really didn't read my other posts did you? Which threats were those please?
-chris
And since when has talking about going to war against a democratic, peaceful, and nuke bearing western european country been a sane thing to talk about in the USA?
:-P But Bush still has a few months left. Give him a chance. Still the dick-size contest started because killjoe quoted the (morally and politically braindead) comment from Krauthammer about parking the carrier. I was just responding to the technically braindead idea that such a problem would be solved with some magic missile. That's 'Mission Accomplished'-type thinking. ;-)
Who said anything about sane?
For some reason it reminds me of the quote:
"Debating unix flavors in the context of anything Microsoft is like talking about which ice cream flavor tastes least like sawdust with turpentine sauce."
-chris
Sometimes a really big rock is all you need.
:-)
Exactly. More of that military funding should obviously be moved over to NASA.
Hmmmmm... Niven and Pournelle reference?
-chris
Still: fleets, right? Not some super weapon, but superior deployment of forces by the British captain no doubt. I'm not saying it can't happen, just not because of the 'all-powerful' Exocet or the like. I'd be interested in a link, but since you're AC you won't see my reply probably. I do believe you, I'd just like to read the story out of curiosity.
;-)
Still pathetic, if there were any subs involved... nah, probably just those damn skimmers
-chris
Yeah. sure. maybe. Look I'm open to the idea that it's a really bad-ass ship, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that the E.U. has a stronger naval presence than the U.S.
:-(
:-/
I admit my information is a good 10 years out of date, but I just remember running training exercises on a 25-year-old boomer (that's a fat pig of a missile sub, not a fast-attack) and running circles around 3 surface ships including one which was specialized for ASW. I mean a submarine has an immense advantage just by being underwater. The entire acoustic characteristics of most areas of the oceans favor those who are underwater; many places will literally refract most sound down to the depth where subs like to hang out meaning the sub's own sound is likewise staying down there. There are only 2 ways for ships to listen below the layer:
1. Drop a buoy of some sort. That involves flying a plane all over the place mining the ocean with those things and -- unless they already have a contact -- is very hit and miss.
2. Trail a hydrophone down deep via a cable or telescoping arm of some sort. That requires going slow and/or is loud (from the water rushing over the protrusion).
So while your baby looks good on paper, I'd wait to see exercises with those things in action. I assume it would only ever be exercises anyways, though I've long stopped underestimating Bush's capacity for being a complete asshole
As for overconfidence, I think you might be getting the kneejerk reaction (common in Europe for example) that I'm just another American who thinks the U.S does no wrong or somesuch. Believe me I know there many countries who do many things better than the U.S. Making peace, for example. Eliminating the death penalty, for another. Universal health coverage is my favorite (I live in Germany, and to you Germans who complain all the time, like about the new 10 Euro 'Praxisgebühr': You don't appreciate how good you - and I - have it).
But... one thing the U.S. is damn good at is making war. This is not pride, or overconfidence. It's observation. If there's a new way to kill people, I'm sure my compatriots will quickly become quite expert at it
-chris
Personally, I think it's pretty horrible to defraud someone in this manner. While I'm sure this guy in the UK is not totally without blame...
Not totally without blame? Are you in politics? Maybe Rumsfeld could use someone of your talents.
-chris
If anything they've been unscammed.
;-)
Hmmmmm... Wouldn't that be anti-scammed?
-chris
the french dont need the tomahawk.
Still makes my point that the Exocet is a pretty stupid example of something that would make a carrier visit "brief". Like I said you would need nukes and of the ones you link to only the ASMP SRAM seems to be a tactical nuke (Ballistic missiles against a carrier sitting off your coast?). Its range of 250 km. is not much better as far as an aircraft carrier goes. It still needs to close to within range against a screen of hostile fighters, and counter-missiles fired from the various cruisers deployed around the carrier.
Look, this is just an intellectual exercise since we are still talking about 2 countries which after all the rhetoric, etc. are *allies*. Nevertheless, a carrier group is a very tough nut to crack, and no amount of links to single weapons is even relevant in the discussion. Such a conflict would revolve around fleets and would be anything but 'brief' -- at least not on the side of the carrier group...
-chris
Exactly!! Are you listening my fellow Americans? That is representative of almost every German I know (me: American living in Germany. But I speak fluent German, so they don't always spot me). I'm sure it's the case with most French. The Germans are anything *but* anti-American. Most of them are still very grateful for things like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift, and they cheered and fawned last time Clinton visited. It's Bush, his government, and its policies, that they hate. That's all.
:-( He's a living breathing recruitment poster for people pissed at the States.
If we pull our heads out of our asses and vote him out (maybe some remedial voter training in Florida?), then I think you'll find a huge change in attitude coming across the Atlantic. The Middle East is different. Bush has probably set us back at least a decade or more there as far as public opinion goes. The terrorist recruiting camps probably rub their hands in glee every time Bush speaks
-chris
Don't the US have a hugedforeign trade deficit? I.e. they actually import much more than they export? So in a sense you could say that the rest of the world already did.
In fact that's been the case for most of my life, I think. However, I have a personal theory that the U.S. exports something a bit more ephemeral than products:
Our appetites and whims. Yes, you read that right. I truly think that the immense *hunger* of the U.S. consumer (pun intended) translates into a power over the world market which influences companies around the world to cater to those desires. Then, since it's more efficient to market your appeal to a somewhat uniform market, those companies turn around and sell things to their own compatriots in an 'American' way.
This is just my little theory about this subject. I could be wildly off base, but it rings true to me.
-chrs
You want to do what? Park an aircraft carrier just off the coast of the country that invented Exocet ?
:-P
My goodness. That'd certainly be a sight worth seeing! Brief, but worth seeing.
Brief? Sorry, no. I'm not one of those knee-jerk "America will kick your ass!" type of Americans but... no. And to the moderators, no it's not insightful. Interesting? Yes.
Your link mentions that it managed to heavily damage a frigate. There's a world of difference between a frigate and an aircraft carrier. From my tour of duty on submarines I can tell you that a frigate of that sort is considered to be a one-torpedo target; one torpedo will literally crack a frigate right in half. Battleships and aircraft carriers nominally need at least 2-3. And that's assuming you even get in range: 65 km? ROFLMAO.
An aircraft carrier is never alone. It is almost always accompanied by at least 2 attack subs and several surface ships ranging 150+ km. around the carrier. No surface ship is getting within even 200 km. of that carrier let alone 65 km. And submarines wouldn't have an easy time of it either. At best it would be a suicide mission (since once they fire, they'll have 2 fast-attacks, a swarm of P-3's, and an ASW cruiser on their ass) and they'd be likely to cause more damage if they simply use their torpedos, or better yet ram it at full speed.
Or, as other posters have pointed out, use nukes. A tomahawk with a tactical nuke and its 1100 km. range would do the trick, assuming the French have them
Don't get caught up with this idea that just because the U.S. is behaving like a bunch of idiots in Iraq, and that guerilla tactics work against a modern army when it's the occupying force among an increasingly hostile populace that that translates to the ocean. Since the break-up of the USSR there is no one (or not even everyone together) who can challenge the U.S. on the seas. Period. That's why the Navy has turned into nothing more than a troop and munitions delivery service: A victim of its own success.
-chris
Another gotcha, if you choose to run KDE is artsd. I won't even attempt to explain it because I'm bound to say something inflammatory.
I'll make it simple then. I'm a hardcore KDE fan; zealot almost. 3 words:
Turn... artsd... off.
That is all.
-chris
I'll just respond to you though this applies to a good number of the posts in the thread. I must be a mutant, since I seem to be the only one I know who found Monsters Inc. to be the *worst* movie Pixar has made so far. I am even a Billy Crystal fan, but the movie just felt too much like any other Billy Crystal movie, with a bunch of standard formulas for animated flicks.
For me Monsters Inc was the most child-oriented (simplistic) of the bunch. That's not to say that Pixar's worst isn't still above average, but I was disappointed compared to the other movies Pixar had produced, and relieved to see Nemo raise the standard again.
-chris
No no no. All they need to do is rot-13 it, slap a copyright on it, and sue the government under the DMCA when they use the decoded version as evidence!
-chris
Well, to be fair, there is also discussion going in that direction (see my other post on stealth vs. sonar)... but come on - Slashdot has always been a place where anti-MS sentiment was quite at home; or at least since I started reading it which *appears* to be somewhat earlier than you - and no I usually don't pull the low user number card, but it isn't entirely irrelevant to this off-topic topic. ;-)
Of course, I was only joking anyway
Cheers,
Chris