"You gotta remember this is a country where they can get away with charging you something like US$5K ( last I knew anyhoo ) to "inspect" your car when it gets to be 5 years old IIRC."
The only people who have cars are the ones who can afford to throw money around like that. They have these things called "trains" over there, or so I hear.
Ever wonder why you never hear of the Great Japanese Road Trip?
"I need a driving license to do anything in the US (at least in most states)."
State-issued, state-controlled, state-maintained form of ID. Standards literally vary from state to state, what with federalism and all. The parent was alluding to a national ID system, the closest to which we have are Social Security cards.
"Some people talked about these prices being reasonable. That's ridiculous."
More like "most people." I haven't bought any of the "NES Classics" series myself, but I do remember when they came out, many of the first run of games were also available as eReader card sets, the same game, identical in all respects. The cards sold for $5, the GBA games for $30. The GBA games still sold.
If they managed to sell well at those prices, especially next to such inexpensive competition, the price of $30 seems to be the definition of "reasonable" at the time.
"I've bought a total of three DS games. One I sold for being complete garbage, and the two others I traded in exchange for another game. I have no plans to buy new DS games, as the value just isn't there.
I've bought ONE GBA title, and it was a reissue packaging two other games together for the normal cost of one game. I won't be buying any others."
You are so far in the minority it isn't even funny. I belive the GBA hardware and software are still outselling the PS2 in all markets.
From what I've seen of kids who grow up in overly-strict households, they'll hit 18, go to college out-of-state, get knocked up (or somebody else knocked up), get hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, etc. etc.
"Shouldn't we expect at least as much from the recordkeepers of democracy as we expect from a gambling house?"
Users care more about the outcome of the slot machine than they do the outcome of an election. And, heck, at least with the slot machine there's a chance to win, instead of "Pick your favorite Republocrat" (assuming the incumbent isn't running unopposed).
"Suits really didn't like him, nailed him to a tree."
Then his disciples started setting people on fire and nailing people to doors, etc. etc. Not so laid back.
"There was also some strange government of people with ponytails and almost-sandals with the idea of "liberty or death" and "all men created equal"....."
"Since when does a developer's alleged mode of dress influence the decisions of those who never meet him?"
"Here, let me introduce you to the team that will be working on your project..."
If you've never seen a client, either your job isn't as important as you seem to think it is, or your sales department is doing a lousy job; most clients would like to see what will be happening before they put their signature on a check with that many zeroes.
I don't get it, personally. How many Slashdotters are actually at risk? The only way I could see someone around here getting it is from a blood transfusion.
"If the carrier group has poor anti-sub operators (or is just unlucky),"
Relying solely on the ineptitude of your enemy will give you a nasty run-in with Murphey's Law.
"If a large group of stealthy bombers"
Stealth minimizes radar returns, it can never eliminate it (unless you know of a way to make a true black body airframe). As such, "massed stealth" is an oxymoron as the more aircraft you have, the greater the chance you'll be detected.
"if the carrier group is forced to go through a restricted region for tactical reasons,"
Again, this relies on the ineptitude of your enemy. Aside from relying on the battlegroup not noticing the mines (or at least hoping that the carrier will be the first to hit one instead of any of the numerous surrounding escorts), you'd have to rely on the battlegroup going through that narrow passage instead of simply using its aircraft to attack whatever is on on the other side.
The only effective carrier-killer will be something that consistently and regularly mitigates all those aircraft it carriers (let alone the carrier's escorts), without relying on something as fickle as luck. So either you need to be able to sink a carrier from extreme range (not "hoping you're not found" but either "not giving them anything to find to begin with" or "having them unable to do anything about it if you are found") or some way to ignore the fighters entirely (be it thicker armor or an effective anti-aircraft laser). And even that relies on the battlegroup not having similar capabilities among its own ships. After all, even a lowly torpedo boat can sink a battleship by hitting below the armor belt, but there's the little matter of getting through all those destroyers...
"It's not necessary to get a direct hit - anything within a mile or so should do the trick."
A mile is a very small distance compared to the effective range of a carrier's aircraft. The only hope you would have is to avoid detection, and between the Aegis cruisers in the battlegroup (not to mention the Hawkeyes on the carrier itself) and the attack submarines (and helicopters), that will prove very, very difficult.
Not even battleships were intended to go out alone, unsupported.
"How do three or four defending aircraft intercept six or more attackers, all widely separated?"
CAP isn't supposed to be the end-all, be-all of carrier defense once a threat has been identified.
"In this day and age, big carriers are reminiscent of the "mighty Hood" in the interwar years 1919 - 1939."
Either way, the HMS Hood was a battlecruiser designed not only to skirt around the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty but also to save the Royal Navy some money by skimping on armor. The hubris behind the HMS Hood was "Even with these limitations, the Hood can still do this, that, and the other thing." With today's spending in the DoD (and during the Cold War), the only real limitation on the carriers in the US fleet is "It has to fit through the Panama Canal."
The only things might possibly end up being a "carrier killer" are space-based weapons (assuming the carrier's compliment of fighters can't be equipped with air-launched ASAT weapons), or battleship design that incorporates:
some sort of light gas rifle, gauss rifle or railgun design that can hit targets from the extreme range of a carrier's air complement, and/or
an unprecedented breakthrough in metallurgy/defense technology that allows a battleship to muscle its way through all the aircraft to get close enough to use more conventional guns.
"most of our other ships were at the bottom of Pearl Harbor."
Yes, sunk by planes launched from aircraft carriers. Airplanes can effectively sink even battleships long before they can bring their guns to bear. Midway was fought without the two fleets even coming within visual range from each other.
Yes, the carrier itself is very easy to take down, but the trick is getting through the scores of fighters (surface vessels) and helicopters (submarines) to get close enough to actually do something, and that's before you take into account the various elements of a carrier battlegroup's support fleet (such as destroyers and attack submarines).
"is that those English pigs don't want them to be nuclear powered, so they'll have to use diesel,"
Not that I see anything in TFA on what kind of power plant these ships will use, but assuming your "not nuclear" statement is right, unless the Royal Navy continues with their "all VSTOL" policy, it's rather silly to power an aircraft carrier with diesel. Instead, they'll probably use a steam plant to both move the ship and prime the catapults (kinda like the USS Kitty Hawk). And steam plants really don't care what you toss into the boiler; usually they burn whatever byproducts the oil refineries can't convince anybody else to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
"You gotta remember this is a country where they can get away with charging you something like US$5K ( last I knew anyhoo ) to "inspect" your car when it gets to be 5 years old IIRC."
The only people who have cars are the ones who can afford to throw money around like that. They have these things called "trains" over there, or so I hear.
Ever wonder why you never hear of the Great Japanese Road Trip?
"The Japanese secondhand electrical goods market was officially estimated last year to be worth around £500m"
OK, but what is that in metric?
"one of the head girlfriends"
Does that mean she was among the chief girlfriends, or... nevermind.
You are likely to be eaten by a koopa.
"I need a driving license to do anything in the US (at least in most states)."
State-issued, state-controlled, state-maintained form of ID. Standards literally vary from state to state, what with federalism and all. The parent was alluding to a national ID system, the closest to which we have are Social Security cards.
"Some people talked about these prices being reasonable. That's ridiculous."
More like "most people." I haven't bought any of the "NES Classics" series myself, but I do remember when they came out, many of the first run of games were also available as eReader card sets, the same game, identical in all respects. The cards sold for $5, the GBA games for $30. The GBA games still sold.
If they managed to sell well at those prices, especially next to such inexpensive competition, the price of $30 seems to be the definition of "reasonable" at the time.
"I've bought a total of three DS games. One I sold for being complete garbage, and the two others I traded in exchange for another game. I have no plans to buy new DS games, as the value just isn't there.
I've bought ONE GBA title, and it was a reissue packaging two other games together for the normal cost of one game. I won't be buying any others."
You are so far in the minority it isn't even funny. I belive the GBA hardware and software are still outselling the PS2 in all markets.
"Walla?"
Walla.
From what I've seen of kids who grow up in overly-strict households, they'll hit 18, go to college out-of-state, get knocked up (or somebody else knocked up), get hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, etc. etc.
"Shouldn't we expect at least as much from the recordkeepers of democracy as we expect from a gambling house?"
Users care more about the outcome of the slot machine than they do the outcome of an election. And, heck, at least with the slot machine there's a chance to win, instead of "Pick your favorite Republocrat" (assuming the incumbent isn't running unopposed).
"Programmers/geeks ARE SUPPOSED TO BE lazy, by definition."
And you wonder why your job is getting outsourced?
"Suits really didn't like him, nailed him to a tree."
Then his disciples started setting people on fire and nailing people to doors, etc. etc. Not so laid back.
"There was also some strange government of people with ponytails and almost-sandals with the idea of "liberty or death" and "all men created equal"....."
But you can't get elected without a red tie.
"Since when does a developer's alleged mode of dress influence the decisions of those who never meet him?"
"Here, let me introduce you to the team that will be working on your project..."
If you've never seen a client, either your job isn't as important as you seem to think it is, or your sales department is doing a lousy job; most clients would like to see what will be happening before they put their signature on a check with that many zeroes.
Using both your right and left hands?
I may not be an expert on that period of history, but I doubt even in the 70's nerds got much.
I don't get it, personally. How many Slashdotters are actually at risk? The only way I could see someone around here getting it is from a blood transfusion.
"Now sex workers all over the world will be killing each other to get their hands on these drugs."
As opposed to the usual drugs they're desparate for?
"If the carrier group has poor anti-sub operators (or is just unlucky),"
Relying solely on the ineptitude of your enemy will give you a nasty run-in with Murphey's Law.
"If a large group of stealthy bombers"
Stealth minimizes radar returns, it can never eliminate it (unless you know of a way to make a true black body airframe). As such, "massed stealth" is an oxymoron as the more aircraft you have, the greater the chance you'll be detected.
"if the carrier group is forced to go through a restricted region for tactical reasons,"
Again, this relies on the ineptitude of your enemy. Aside from relying on the battlegroup not noticing the mines (or at least hoping that the carrier will be the first to hit one instead of any of the numerous surrounding escorts), you'd have to rely on the battlegroup going through that narrow passage instead of simply using its aircraft to attack whatever is on on the other side.
The only effective carrier-killer will be something that consistently and regularly mitigates all those aircraft it carriers (let alone the carrier's escorts), without relying on something as fickle as luck. So either you need to be able to sink a carrier from extreme range (not "hoping you're not found" but either "not giving them anything to find to begin with" or "having them unable to do anything about it if you are found") or some way to ignore the fighters entirely (be it thicker armor or an effective anti-aircraft laser). And even that relies on the battlegroup not having similar capabilities among its own ships. After all, even a lowly torpedo boat can sink a battleship by hitting below the armor belt, but there's the little matter of getting through all those destroyers...
And what of the Battle of Taranto?
A mile is a very small distance compared to the effective range of a carrier's aircraft. The only hope you would have is to avoid detection, and between the Aegis cruisers in the battlegroup (not to mention the Hawkeyes on the carrier itself) and the attack submarines (and helicopters), that will prove very, very difficult.
Not even battleships were intended to go out alone, unsupported.
"How do three or four defending aircraft intercept six or more attackers, all widely separated?"
CAP isn't supposed to be the end-all, be-all of carrier defense once a threat has been identified.
"In this day and age, big carriers are reminiscent of the "mighty Hood" in the interwar years 1919 - 1939."
Either way, the HMS Hood was a battlecruiser designed not only to skirt around the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty but also to save the Royal Navy some money by skimping on armor. The hubris behind the HMS Hood was "Even with these limitations, the Hood can still do this, that, and the other thing." With today's spending in the DoD (and during the Cold War), the only real limitation on the carriers in the US fleet is "It has to fit through the Panama Canal."
The only things might possibly end up being a "carrier killer" are space-based weapons (assuming the carrier's compliment of fighters can't be equipped with air-launched ASAT weapons), or battleship design that incorporates:
"most of our other ships were at the bottom of Pearl Harbor."
Yes, sunk by planes launched from aircraft carriers. Airplanes can effectively sink even battleships long before they can bring their guns to bear. Midway was fought without the two fleets even coming within visual range from each other.
Yes, the carrier itself is very easy to take down, but the trick is getting through the scores of fighters (surface vessels) and helicopters (submarines) to get close enough to actually do something, and that's before you take into account the various elements of a carrier battlegroup's support fleet (such as destroyers and attack submarines).
"Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time."
Wait, I've seen that stuff on the internet! It's used in clothing, right?
I'm amazed number 15E6 doesn't mention the GNAA, Netcraft confirmations, old Koreans, Soviet Russia or hot grits.
More like "UCANT."
"send five instead, it's still cheaper."
Are they gonna have five in the same ocean at the same time? As the blurb mentions, this isn't the USN's four-ocean navy or Pentagon-sized budget.
"is that those English pigs don't want them to be nuclear powered, so they'll have to use diesel,"
Not that I see anything in TFA on what kind of power plant these ships will use, but assuming your "not nuclear" statement is right, unless the Royal Navy continues with their "all VSTOL" policy, it's rather silly to power an aircraft carrier with diesel. Instead, they'll probably use a steam plant to both move the ship and prime the catapults (kinda like the USS Kitty Hawk). And steam plants really don't care what you toss into the boiler; usually they burn whatever byproducts the oil refineries can't convince anybody else to buy.
The ballistics computers for the Iowa class battleships lasted that long, but they certainly weren't "computers" in the modern sense...