That's right. As an incurable optimist, I'm still holding onto faint hope that EEStor will prove me wrong and not actually be a total scam. Slashdot previously covered EEStor.
It is totally clear, and any rational reading of the constitution would result in that conclusion. However, Dick isn't interested in abiding by the law, he'd rather be above it.
Let's face it... Democrat activists are fairly liberal and more likely to be big GNU proponents. GOP activists are fairly conservative, and more likely to be pro-business, and anti-anything that smacks of socialism (like free software). Interesting news, but not unexpected.
I wonder if our posts here on/. are also being monitored, and even compiled into portraits of our clearly rebellious personalities by outsourced (Indian) analysts?
While I liked your post, and consider it informative, 'megaditto' can't possibly refer to Rush Limbaugh? We generally like to hear new opinions, good, bad or ugly, on slashdot.
I smiled. Heck, I almost woke up the kids with laughter. Consider this post a +1 funny, which it would be if I had any mod points. There's another thing about mod points that bothers me... I get something like 5 points per week modding up my posts, yet I only get allocated perhaps 1 point every two months for moderation. Doesn't that violate a basic law of conservation of mod points?
You know, Russia said the exact same thing about their soldiers who died in Afghanistan. That war broke the USSR's back. The government lost all credibility, their military became exhausted, and the USSR lost any international credibility it had before (ok, it wasn't much before). Anyone else see any parallels?
Hey, that was a good post. I see you're currently modded 3 for 'informative'. That seems fair to me (informative links deserve high mods). There's an odd trend I've noticed that I can't explain, so I'll just state it. I predict that your post will be modded up for a while, and then over a couple of days, it will get modded all the way down to 0. For some reason, after a few days, moderators keep modding down any posts that seem at all anti-Bush, but they don't do it right away. The delay is what bothers me. Why doesn't it happen right away when we're all reading the article and responses? I also predict that this post will be modded down, in similar fashion, but only after a couple of days.
I will say though, this makes my respect for those vendors who have refused to sign that much greater
Agreed. Even further, how many of us now boycott the Linux distros that buckled under M$ pressure? I do, and have steered multiple companies away from Suse already. Xandros and Linspire weren't really on my radar anyway, but now I'll be on the lookout for opportunities to torpedo them. Is there any community group organizing such a boycott?
What kind of particle beams? Anything carrying charge will diffuse because of it's self-repulsion, and neutrons wont hurt the target enough. Some sort of neutrally charged plasma? I'm ignorant of this area, and it really does sound like mutant territory. Is there anything real? Got a good laugh from the mutant reply, though.
Wonderful pictures! If you go to the Hill Air Force base, you can actually visit the museum where they have an SR-71, and unlike the one you can see in DC, at Hill they let you touch the plane. I'm sure they think guys like me are weirdos... sitting there with a dumb look on my face, stroking a huge engine. Worth the trip to Utah IMO.
I heard many years ago that the self-destruct mechanisms on the equipment in some of our aircraft had a major flaw: if you set them off, it would destroy the sensitive equipment, but if couldn't get out of the plane fast, you'd die. Kinda discouraged people from actually setting them off. Have we fixed this by now?
Yeah, the Cold War days were awful, but it had to be fought. I feel like we should make the day that the Berlin Wall fell a national holiday, not to take credit for it, but to celebrate the end of the Cold War. It's funny how most people I talk to in NC can't even remember who was president on that day (Bush Senior).
Good intel is a great way to save lives, and I'd mod your post insightful if I weren't in the discussion and if I had points. I suspect that the end of the Cold War was partly due to both sides finally having excellent real-time intel on each other's big projects (clearly visible from space). The Cold War fed on fear and paranoia. As for England dropping bombs on German cities, yeah it happened, and war sucks. Why is it that we Americans seem to think we held the moral high-ground in WWII bombing? In Europe, we bombed mostly military targets in daylight, at huge cost to our pilots, while England did much night bombing of cities (an outstanding book about this is one my step-father edited: "No Foxholes in the Sky"). However, we dropped napalm on Japanese cities at night, and later nuked them. I'm not saying we were wrong for what we did, but it's just impolite to keep reminding our English friends of the awful things they did in the war. War sucks, and we have zero moral high ground in how we fought the war. However, we share with England the moral high ground in what we fought for. That's what made us the "good guys" and the other side the "baddies", and it's why I'm so proud of "the Greatest Generation", and all of their efforts and sacrifice.
You haven't touched on the Iraq war, but slashdot is for flaming: I think Bush would like us to think of Iraq as a war where we hold the moral high-ground. Come on... what the hell are we fighting for over there? We simply don't have a clear moral mandate. It's hard to say who the "baddies" really are. Are the Sunni bad, yet the Kurds and Shiites good? Yeah, right. I think most people living in that region would identify us as the "baddies". Had we stopped with Afghanistan, we would have retained the moral high-ground, as well as world-respect. Similarly, if Israel had either naturalized the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza, or had they simply pulled out of those regions after winning the '67 war, they would still hold the moral high-ground today. The Middle East is a damned mess, and if we can't figure out who the "baddies" are, we should just get the heck out.
I watched a great program on TV about the original cruise missile design from the 60's. The design was super-sonic, flew near the ground, and lobbed nuke after nuke at multiple targets. The thing would launch them upwards, and it would be long gone before the nukes landed. The think was so aggressive that the project was reportedly canned so as not to intimidate the USSR into a first strike. Yeah, advanced missiles can make countries nervous. I doubt this one would be all that scary though, as it is a recon craft, as you say, rather than a missile. I'm not sure I see the point of it relative to the current generation of ultra-sonic planes we most likely already fly, other than to reduce the danger to would-be pilots, or of a pilot being captured.
Yeah, "magnetic engines" gave me a laugh, though the guy deserves some informative points. The hard problems, as you've stated, were claimed in the book on the stealth fighter's development to be unsurmountable. What BS. Lockheed Martin just a few years later then proposed the Venture Star, which they claimed solved all the hard problems. What a coincidence.
In the lengthy F-22 vs JSF debates, I read that the F-22 stealth sounds great, but while doing super-cruise, it'd be easy enough to spot from it's heat. I'm a big fan of the F-22, but if it's hard to hide that thing, I have to imaging it'd be just about impossible for a hyper-sonic plane.
I'm also pretty sure you won't be able to corroborate that on the Web. Believe what you will.:-)
I'm feeling too lazy to go do the work, but I believe you can corroborate this very easily. Simply look at the length of time that the USSR held the world speed record, and then look at what US plane then took back the crown. Answer? All the US did to counter new USSR records was send the SR-71 back into the sky and let people see it break the record. The plane was retired while still holding the official record. I haven't even heard a semi-credible opinion on how fast the thing really goes.
As this is slashdot, I'll throw out what I've heard without siting a source. I hear the USSR shot plenty of missiles at the blackbird, but at that altitude, the missiles turned into flying bricks, unable to turn effectively. Designed for that altitude, the blackbird simply had to make a slight turn to avoid a missile.
The Blackbird was a horribly un-stealthy plane, seen from hundreds of miles away by radar
That might be true from hundreds of miles away, but I don't think that's true once it gets close. Ever notice the king-cobra shape of the plane, with what looks like a funny hood extending out around most of it? Most people assume that somehow helps the plane fly, but I've read that it was an early form of stealth meant to reduce it's radar signature from below (not hundreds of miles away). I'll read on down this list of posts, but I'm surprised I haven't seen discussion of the current secret ultra-sonic plane that replaced the SR-71. BTW, that picture is pretty, but doesn't look anything at all like an ultra-sonic plane to me. Is that tiny intake going to do the job? Not if this thing is a SCRAM-jet. Is it hydrogen/oxygen rocket powered? Possibly, but that tail V looks funny, too. This picture looks like a stealth sub-sonic drone to me, very similar to the non-secret one Boeing developed. I'm afraid the article is fun, but I'm filing it in the BS folder.
Heck, I'd settle for an automated reply e-mail. AFAIK, my rep completely ignores me, but given that many here on slashdot also ignore me, I shouldn't be surprised. The only two issues I've ever raised up the flag pole to my rep is 1) support for a law that would ban discrimination against IP packets based on origin, and 2) redefining the definition of rad-hard chips to take into account reality at 90nm and below, so that we can have a sane rad-hard electronics industry in the US. Maybe if I were in the habit of making political donations, it'd be different, but in general I believe political donations are worse for the country than burning the money.
So Google is getting political... I bet that will make it even harder for them to stick to their "Don't be evil" policy.
So, after all these years of denying that global warming was happening, suddenly Bush is the anti-global-warming president? What a crock of sh-t. So, why the change of heart? I think I've figured it out: Gore is winning the public perception war in America, and going against him hurts the GOP's chances in 2008. Plain and simple Bush style BS. I hope the public doesn't get fooled.
That's a very interesting argument. Here's my twist to it. Trucking is a great industry to look at, since they are rabid about costs above all else. If this makes financial sense, they'd be into it. The #1 reason electric delivery trucks are not economical today is the cost of battery packs large enough to push them around all day. I have been arguing that small A123 packs (say 20-40 mile range) are economical because you can use them for so long (like 200K miles, 40 miles per charge). Per mile, the A123's are way cheaper than normal Lion. If you scale that argument up to delivery trucks, I think you'd could say that an all-electric truck could drive 1,000,000 miles on one battery pack, 200 miles per charge. It might fit some specific needs, even if the up-front cost per truck is high.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right. As an incurable optimist, I'm still holding onto faint hope that EEStor will prove me wrong and not actually be a total scam. Slashdot previously covered EEStor.
It is totally clear, and any rational reading of the constitution would result in that conclusion. However, Dick isn't interested in abiding by the law, he'd rather be above it.
Let's face it... Democrat activists are fairly liberal and more likely to be big GNU proponents. GOP activists are fairly conservative, and more likely to be pro-business, and anti-anything that smacks of socialism (like free software). Interesting news, but not unexpected.
I wonder if our posts here on /. are also being monitored, and even compiled into portraits of our clearly rebellious personalities by outsourced (Indian) analysts?
While I liked your post, and consider it informative, 'megaditto' can't possibly refer to Rush Limbaugh? We generally like to hear new opinions, good, bad or ugly, on slashdot.
I smiled. Heck, I almost woke up the kids with laughter. Consider this post a +1 funny, which it would be if I had any mod points. There's another thing about mod points that bothers me... I get something like 5 points per week modding up my posts, yet I only get allocated perhaps 1 point every two months for moderation. Doesn't that violate a basic law of conservation of mod points?
You know, Russia said the exact same thing about their soldiers who died in Afghanistan. That war broke the USSR's back. The government lost all credibility, their military became exhausted, and the USSR lost any international credibility it had before (ok, it wasn't much before). Anyone else see any parallels?
Hey, that was a good post. I see you're currently modded 3 for 'informative'. That seems fair to me (informative links deserve high mods). There's an odd trend I've noticed that I can't explain, so I'll just state it. I predict that your post will be modded up for a while, and then over a couple of days, it will get modded all the way down to 0. For some reason, after a few days, moderators keep modding down any posts that seem at all anti-Bush, but they don't do it right away. The delay is what bothers me. Why doesn't it happen right away when we're all reading the article and responses? I also predict that this post will be modded down, in similar fashion, but only after a couple of days.
Agreed. Even further, how many of us now boycott the Linux distros that buckled under M$ pressure? I do, and have steered multiple companies away from Suse already. Xandros and Linspire weren't really on my radar anyway, but now I'll be on the lookout for opportunities to torpedo them. Is there any community group organizing such a boycott?
What kind of particle beams? Anything carrying charge will diffuse because of it's self-repulsion, and neutrons wont hurt the target enough. Some sort of neutrally charged plasma? I'm ignorant of this area, and it really does sound like mutant territory. Is there anything real? Got a good laugh from the mutant reply, though.
Wonderful pictures! If you go to the Hill Air Force base, you can actually visit the museum where they have an SR-71, and unlike the one you can see in DC, at Hill they let you touch the plane. I'm sure they think guys like me are weirdos... sitting there with a dumb look on my face, stroking a huge engine. Worth the trip to Utah IMO.
Yeah, right. Get in line :-)
I heard many years ago that the self-destruct mechanisms on the equipment in some of our aircraft had a major flaw: if you set them off, it would destroy the sensitive equipment, but if couldn't get out of the plane fast, you'd die. Kinda discouraged people from actually setting them off. Have we fixed this by now?
Yeah, the Cold War days were awful, but it had to be fought. I feel like we should make the day that the Berlin Wall fell a national holiday, not to take credit for it, but to celebrate the end of the Cold War. It's funny how most people I talk to in NC can't even remember who was president on that day (Bush Senior).
Good intel is a great way to save lives, and I'd mod your post insightful if I weren't in the discussion and if I had points. I suspect that the end of the Cold War was partly due to both sides finally having excellent real-time intel on each other's big projects (clearly visible from space). The Cold War fed on fear and paranoia. As for England dropping bombs on German cities, yeah it happened, and war sucks. Why is it that we Americans seem to think we held the moral high-ground in WWII bombing? In Europe, we bombed mostly military targets in daylight, at huge cost to our pilots, while England did much night bombing of cities (an outstanding book about this is one my step-father edited: "No Foxholes in the Sky"). However, we dropped napalm on Japanese cities at night, and later nuked them. I'm not saying we were wrong for what we did, but it's just impolite to keep reminding our English friends of the awful things they did in the war. War sucks, and we have zero moral high ground in how we fought the war. However, we share with England the moral high ground in what we fought for. That's what made us the "good guys" and the other side the "baddies", and it's why I'm so proud of "the Greatest Generation", and all of their efforts and sacrifice.
You haven't touched on the Iraq war, but slashdot is for flaming: I think Bush would like us to think of Iraq as a war where we hold the moral high-ground. Come on... what the hell are we fighting for over there? We simply don't have a clear moral mandate. It's hard to say who the "baddies" really are. Are the Sunni bad, yet the Kurds and Shiites good? Yeah, right. I think most people living in that region would identify us as the "baddies". Had we stopped with Afghanistan, we would have retained the moral high-ground, as well as world-respect. Similarly, if Israel had either naturalized the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza, or had they simply pulled out of those regions after winning the '67 war, they would still hold the moral high-ground today. The Middle East is a damned mess, and if we can't figure out who the "baddies" are, we should just get the heck out.
I watched a great program on TV about the original cruise missile design from the 60's. The design was super-sonic, flew near the ground, and lobbed nuke after nuke at multiple targets. The thing would launch them upwards, and it would be long gone before the nukes landed. The think was so aggressive that the project was reportedly canned so as not to intimidate the USSR into a first strike. Yeah, advanced missiles can make countries nervous. I doubt this one would be all that scary though, as it is a recon craft, as you say, rather than a missile. I'm not sure I see the point of it relative to the current generation of ultra-sonic planes we most likely already fly, other than to reduce the danger to would-be pilots, or of a pilot being captured.
Yeah, "magnetic engines" gave me a laugh, though the guy deserves some informative points. The hard problems, as you've stated, were claimed in the book on the stealth fighter's development to be unsurmountable. What BS. Lockheed Martin just a few years later then proposed the Venture Star, which they claimed solved all the hard problems. What a coincidence.
In the lengthy F-22 vs JSF debates, I read that the F-22 stealth sounds great, but while doing super-cruise, it'd be easy enough to spot from it's heat. I'm a big fan of the F-22, but if it's hard to hide that thing, I have to imaging it'd be just about impossible for a hyper-sonic plane.
I'm feeling too lazy to go do the work, but I believe you can corroborate this very easily. Simply look at the length of time that the USSR held the world speed record, and then look at what US plane then took back the crown. Answer? All the US did to counter new USSR records was send the SR-71 back into the sky and let people see it break the record. The plane was retired while still holding the official record. I haven't even heard a semi-credible opinion on how fast the thing really goes.
As this is slashdot, I'll throw out what I've heard without siting a source. I hear the USSR shot plenty of missiles at the blackbird, but at that altitude, the missiles turned into flying bricks, unable to turn effectively. Designed for that altitude, the blackbird simply had to make a slight turn to avoid a missile.
I think all that air in the way is the worst problem, isn't it? Wasn't that why Regan wanted to put his lasers in space?
That might be true from hundreds of miles away, but I don't think that's true once it gets close. Ever notice the king-cobra shape of the plane, with what looks like a funny hood extending out around most of it? Most people assume that somehow helps the plane fly, but I've read that it was an early form of stealth meant to reduce it's radar signature from below (not hundreds of miles away). I'll read on down this list of posts, but I'm surprised I haven't seen discussion of the current secret ultra-sonic plane that replaced the SR-71. BTW, that picture is pretty, but doesn't look anything at all like an ultra-sonic plane to me. Is that tiny intake going to do the job? Not if this thing is a SCRAM-jet. Is it hydrogen/oxygen rocket powered? Possibly, but that tail V looks funny, too. This picture looks like a stealth sub-sonic drone to me, very similar to the non-secret one Boeing developed. I'm afraid the article is fun, but I'm filing it in the BS folder.
Heck, I'd settle for an automated reply e-mail. AFAIK, my rep completely ignores me, but given that many here on slashdot also ignore me, I shouldn't be surprised. The only two issues I've ever raised up the flag pole to my rep is 1) support for a law that would ban discrimination against IP packets based on origin, and 2) redefining the definition of rad-hard chips to take into account reality at 90nm and below, so that we can have a sane rad-hard electronics industry in the US. Maybe if I were in the habit of making political donations, it'd be different, but in general I believe political donations are worse for the country than burning the money.
So Google is getting political... I bet that will make it even harder for them to stick to their "Don't be evil" policy.
So, after all these years of denying that global warming was happening, suddenly Bush is the anti-global-warming president? What a crock of sh-t. So, why the change of heart? I think I've figured it out: Gore is winning the public perception war in America, and going against him hurts the GOP's chances in 2008. Plain and simple Bush style BS. I hope the public doesn't get fooled.
That's a very interesting argument. Here's my twist to it. Trucking is a great industry to look at, since they are rabid about costs above all else. If this makes financial sense, they'd be into it. The #1 reason electric delivery trucks are not economical today is the cost of battery packs large enough to push them around all day. I have been arguing that small A123 packs (say 20-40 mile range) are economical because you can use them for so long (like 200K miles, 40 miles per charge). Per mile, the A123's are way cheaper than normal Lion. If you scale that argument up to delivery trucks, I think you'd could say that an all-electric truck could drive 1,000,000 miles on one battery pack, 200 miles per charge. It might fit some specific needs, even if the up-front cost per truck is high.