I agree. Yet another anti-china story, in a long list of anti-china stories over the past few weeks, ever since the chinese threatened to call in the US debt when the US demanded the chinese revaluate the Yuan. More American propaganda being fed to the people, to make sure that China is slowly moved to the "axis of evil" category.
This means for example that ISPs would have to restrict ssh remote login to hosts on a whitelist.
This is what all governments want, anyway. After all, who wants the common person to be able to instantly communicate his ideas to any amount of people in the world? That would be DANGEROUS.
Them danged noise horseless carriage "motor" cars are scaring women and children and horses. They should be banned, or should have someone walk in front of them with a flag to warn us decent folk.
Amazing how legislators are always the last people to understand a technology and its impact on society.
I would extend this to "software" as a whole. Software seems to be in a special protected class, since companies are able to KNOWINGLY deliver a defective product and be immune from prosecution. Computer games I am looking at you. There seems to be a mentality in the industry of "ship now, patch later".
I can't let this go without a car analogy (this is slashdot after all):
It's like buying a new car from a dealership, only to find out it comes with 5 flat tires. But the salesman puts his arm on your shoulder and says "hey, no worries, look - there's a gas station just over there and you can get those tires fixed in no time".
It's high time the software industry as a whole was held accountable for this sloth. And don't give me the crap about "oh but there are so many different computers and hardware and configurations". After all, ISN'T THAT WHAT WINDOWS WAS SUPPOSED TO FIX? We certainly were sold on that idea in 1995. Windows was supposed to be a common application interface that smoothed over all the hardware differences. But because it's the poorly documented, bloated, kludge that it is, programmers yet again have to rely on little tricks and cheats to get top performance out of it. Resulting in crashes/bugs on non-standard systems.
Umm, actually people pirate Windows anyway. They just don't use auto-update, therefore no WGA. Oh yeah you miss out on the latest security holes/fixes for explorer/outlook. But who uses those anyway?
I'm sure a lot less people would pirate windows if it was available for $19 a copy. How many people pirated MS-DOS when it was under $50? Few enough to allow Microsoft to grow into the leviathan it is today.
I've never been satisfactorily explained why you can't wipe dust off of a panel of glass?
They sent the damned thing to mars - you'd think they'd be able to adapt a wiper to work on it.
Why on earth is everyone trying to wipe dust off the panels? THE ROVERS ARE STILL WORKING DESPITE THE DUST. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. You're just adding another level of complexity, and another system that can break (and take the rest of the robot with it).
Fighting the last war? It's been the opinion of many military analysts for over three decades that carriers are "sitting ducks". This was confirmed during the Falklands War when the tiny Argentine Air Force was able to cause tremendous damage.
Umm, as far as I know the HMS Hermes (a British carrier) was nowhere near the Sheffield when it was hit. Yes the Argentines manged to sink a destroyer on an ASW patrol. What does this have to do with aircraft carriers?
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships.
Yes, this was proven even before World War II. Airplanes are good at killing ships. That's why the carrier was invented - to get planes within range of ships to kill them. But don't forget that aircraft carriers ALSO carry airplanes that kill airplanes. Again you miss the point. There is NO WAY your aircraft will get within range of my carrier group. If my 24 hour CAP doesn't get you with its over the horizon air to air missiles, plus support from dedicated radar and jamming planes; then my dedicated surface to air missile cruisers will.
A carrier costs billions to build, billions to fill with aircraft, and billions to run/maintain. However carriers are still being built - I guess you haven't heard about the "Ford" class, with the first one Gerald R. Ford expected to be ready by 2013 and another two planned up to 2020. Considering that there are only 10 carriers active in the US fleet right now, and they are going produce 30% of that number in the next 13 years, I'd say that carriers are in no danger of being "phased out" as you claim. If anything the current fleet will be maintained, with the newer ships replacing older ones that will be decomissioned.
Just because the Navy is also investing in alternatives does NOT invalidate the usefulness of an aircraft carrier.
They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.
This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?
Carrier groups have ASW capabilities, it's what they do when they're not flying air to mud missions. Oh, and carrier groups also usually have friendly subs around them looking for enemy subs. A "group" of enemy submarines would have to be very lucky indeed to get close enough to score a hit on a carrier.
Owning carriers is not for "show". If you have a carrier group, you own the ocean, and you own the air above whatever shoreline you want, for the simple reason that you know where you are, and the enemy doesn't. You can strike at any time, from any direction on the compass. This gives you the initiative.
Oh and who else has carriers? Not many countries, and most of them have just the one.
Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.
The German U-boat fleet rarely engaged the Royal Navy. And with the occasional exception, when they did this, they were sunk. The U-boats were used as commerce raiders, and had great success. For a year or so. Now please look up the statistics on how many u-boats actually survived the war, and talk to me about "success". It was a disaster, like almost everything else Germany did after taking France.
then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?
Oh I dunno, some 500 years of British naval combat experience perhaps? Plus the Brits had the numbers on their side. Technology will only help you so far, but numbers win every time.
If you can build a bleeding-edge submarine you can build an enclosed space to put it in.
However an "enclosed space" with lots of soldiers around it and signs saying "TOP SECRET" and "KEEP OUT" will only attract attention. Sometimes hiding things in plain sight is a viable option.
Think again! 99.9% of the Navies of the world don't have sonar good enough to even get a sniff of one of our boats.
That's very funny, considering that a judge ruled against the environment and for the navy's use of high powered sonar because, after all, national security comes first. His excuse - "we are at war!". So obviously you are wrong - we must be prepared to meet the threat from the Iraqi and Afghanistani navies - those devious bastards know exactly where our subs are.
Seriously, the judge could have ruled what he wanted, and the navy can claim that international waters are outside his jurisdiction. It would make a lot more sense than this comedy.
You do realize that the RIAA and MPAA's plan to cover the holes in the punch-cards to prevent piracy was a drastic failure, don't you? Of course they have the source code! How many boxes of it do you want?
The survey also reveals that more women than men are bloggers, with 20% of American women who have visited blogs having their own versus 14% of men."
Wrong. This just means that more American women who visit blogs have their own blogs. Please do not read more into the data than what is actually there.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone else nervous that these clowns are armed to the teeth, with enough firepower to destroy the world and make the rubble bounce several times?
Yes. America makes me very nervous. Oh, isn't that what you meant?
China has around 200 nuclear weapons, compared to the US's 5000+.
This is another set up situation
I agree. Yet another anti-china story, in a long list of anti-china stories over the past few weeks, ever since the chinese threatened to call in the US debt when the US demanded the chinese revaluate the Yuan. More American propaganda being fed to the people, to make sure that China is slowly moved to the "axis of evil" category.
This means for example that ISPs would have to restrict ssh remote login to hosts on a whitelist.
This is what all governments want, anyway. After all, who wants the common person to be able to instantly communicate his ideas to any amount of people in the world? That would be DANGEROUS.
Them danged noise horseless carriage "motor" cars are scaring women and children and horses. They should be banned, or should have someone walk in front of them with a flag to warn us decent folk.
Amazing how legislators are always the last people to understand a technology and its impact on society.
His use of games as an example was a poor choice.
Why? Should there be one law for games and another one for accounting software?
Is the games industry not a multi-billion dollar market?
Oh, but because it's GAMES, it doesn't MATTER... then mind if I just pirate these games, because after all, it doesn't MATTER does it?
When are we going to demand more from OS vendors?
I would extend this to "software" as a whole. Software seems to be in a special protected class, since companies are able to KNOWINGLY deliver a defective product and be immune from prosecution. Computer games I am looking at you. There seems to be a mentality in the industry of "ship now, patch later".
I can't let this go without a car analogy (this is slashdot after all):
It's like buying a new car from a dealership, only to find out it comes with 5 flat tires. But the salesman puts his arm on your shoulder and says "hey, no worries, look - there's a gas station just over there and you can get those tires fixed in no time".
It's high time the software industry as a whole was held accountable for this sloth. And don't give me the crap about "oh but there are so many different computers and hardware and configurations". After all, ISN'T THAT WHAT WINDOWS WAS SUPPOSED TO FIX? We certainly were sold on that idea in 1995. Windows was supposed to be a common application interface that smoothed over all the hardware differences. But because it's the poorly documented, bloated, kludge that it is, programmers yet again have to rely on little tricks and cheats to get top performance out of it. Resulting in crashes/bugs on non-standard systems.
Umm, actually people pirate Windows anyway. They just don't use auto-update, therefore no WGA. Oh yeah you miss out on the latest security holes/fixes for explorer/outlook. But who uses those anyway?
I'm sure a lot less people would pirate windows if it was available for $19 a copy. How many people pirated MS-DOS when it was under $50? Few enough to allow Microsoft to grow into the leviathan it is today.
"we didnt have the right monitoring in place to be sure the fixes had the intended effect"'
This sounds a lot like the Bush administration's excuse... oops!
Seriously, Microsoft is great at monitoring YOUR computer, but they can't monitor their own?
I've never been satisfactorily explained why you can't wipe dust off of a panel of glass?
They sent the damned thing to mars - you'd think they'd be able to adapt a wiper to work on it.
Why on earth is everyone trying to wipe dust off the panels? THE ROVERS ARE STILL WORKING DESPITE THE DUST. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. You're just adding another level of complexity, and another system that can break (and take the rest of the robot with it).
Fighting the last war? It's been the opinion of many military analysts for over three decades that carriers are "sitting ducks". This was confirmed during the Falklands War when the tiny Argentine Air Force was able to cause tremendous damage.
Umm, as far as I know the HMS Hermes (a British carrier) was nowhere near the Sheffield when it was hit. Yes the Argentines manged to sink a destroyer on an ASW patrol. What does this have to do with aircraft carriers?
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships.
Yes, this was proven even before World War II. Airplanes are good at killing ships. That's why the carrier was invented - to get planes within range of ships to kill them. But don't forget that aircraft carriers ALSO carry airplanes that kill airplanes. Again you miss the point. There is NO WAY your aircraft will get within range of my carrier group. If my 24 hour CAP doesn't get you with its over the horizon air to air missiles, plus support from dedicated radar and jamming planes; then my dedicated surface to air missile cruisers will.
A carrier costs billions to build, billions to fill with aircraft, and billions to run/maintain. However carriers are still being built - I guess you haven't heard about the "Ford" class, with the first one Gerald R. Ford expected to be ready by 2013 and another two planned up to 2020. Considering that there are only 10 carriers active in the US fleet right now, and they are going produce 30% of that number in the next 13 years, I'd say that carriers are in no danger of being "phased out" as you claim. If anything the current fleet will be maintained, with the newer ships replacing older ones that will be decomissioned.
Just because the Navy is also investing in alternatives does NOT invalidate the usefulness of an aircraft carrier.
They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.
This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?
Carrier groups have ASW capabilities, it's what they do when they're not flying air to mud missions. Oh, and carrier groups also usually have friendly subs around them looking for enemy subs. A "group" of enemy submarines would have to be very lucky indeed to get close enough to score a hit on a carrier.
Owning carriers is not for "show". If you have a carrier group, you own the ocean, and you own the air above whatever shoreline you want, for the simple reason that you know where you are, and the enemy doesn't. You can strike at any time, from any direction on the compass. This gives you the initiative.
Oh and who else has carriers? Not many countries, and most of them have just the one.
Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.
The German U-boat fleet rarely engaged the Royal Navy. And with the occasional exception, when they did this, they were sunk. The U-boats were used as commerce raiders, and had great success. For a year or so. Now please look up the statistics on how many u-boats actually survived the war, and talk to me about "success". It was a disaster, like almost everything else Germany did after taking France.
then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?
Oh I dunno, some 500 years of British naval combat experience perhaps? Plus the Brits had the numbers on their side. Technology will only help you so far, but numbers win every time.
Remember, if we don't keep everything secret, the terrorists will win!
The "terrorists" have already won. Where have you been the past 5 years or so?
If you can build a bleeding-edge submarine you can build an enclosed space to put it in.
However an "enclosed space" with lots of soldiers around it and signs saying "TOP SECRET" and "KEEP OUT" will only attract attention. Sometimes hiding things in plain sight is a viable option.
Think again! 99.9% of the Navies of the world don't have sonar good enough to even get a sniff of one of our boats.
That's very funny, considering that a judge ruled against the environment and for the navy's use of high powered sonar because, after all, national security comes first. His excuse - "we are at war!". So obviously you are wrong - we must be prepared to meet the threat from the Iraqi and Afghanistani navies - those devious bastards know exactly where our subs are.
Seriously, the judge could have ruled what he wanted, and the navy can claim that international waters are outside his jurisdiction. It would make a lot more sense than this comedy.
There is no such thing as "Libertarianism." It is simply a cover for the extreme right-wing,
You meant to say "republican"
(a) they have the source code
You do realize that the RIAA and MPAA's plan to cover the holes in the punch-cards to prevent piracy was a drastic failure, don't you? Of course they have the source code! How many boxes of it do you want?
It's very expensive to take an old piece of software, written in some obscure language, running on an old machine with a weird architecture
However this is countered by the fact that the entire program is probably only 4kB...
Somebody just got themselves some free laptops!
scaring the shit out of old ladies.
Little old ladies are not going to get between me and my flying car, dammit!!! They don't like it, tough! We nerds have waited long enough for this!
Surely you can't fly over people's backyards
Why not?
10ft is too low to get you over trucks
But you can maneuver around them.
And perhaps you could argue that you fly at 10 ft, and occasionally move up to 20-30ft to avoid traffic...
The survey also reveals that more women than men are bloggers, with 20% of American women who have visited blogs having their own versus 14% of men."
Wrong. This just means that more American women who visit blogs have their own blogs. Please do not read more into the data than what is actually there.
The American government has gone full out crazy. They have no idea what they're even fighting for any more.
/sarcasm
They are fighting the American people, stupid.
The servers explode and spill hot grits all over Cowboy Neal!
Only in Soviet Russia. Here, it's the other way around. However I for one welcome our inaccurate duplicating slashdot...