Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Good (Score 0) 87

Nah now you clowns are kicking around in upgraded Su-27s trying to milk more life out of a dated airframe while you wait for the PAK-FA to get engines worth a sorry fuck. But just like the shit engines in the MiG-25, you STILL can't make a jet engine the equal of ours and so the PAK sits on the ground, lost and forlorn, while our own F-35s are already in service and droppin bombs.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 87

Durable. Durable. Yeah, when you build your interceptors out of nickel steel they're durable as bricks - and they've got similar flight kinematics, too! I hear your Syrian buddies are so impressed by that rugged brick-like durability that they've towed their entire MiG-25 fleet out into the desert around the T4 airbase and left 'em to rot. But hey, at least they're durable. A thousand years from now they'll dig those planes out of the sand and stand around to marvel at the brick-like creations of their primitive ancestors. Das Rodina's legend will live on, in a museum, and then you'll finally achieve your deserved ascendancy over the decedent West!

Durable. Durable. I love you Vatniks so much. SO MUCH

Comment Keeping Up With The Jonses (Score 1) 154

Incidentally the United States is working on a missile-borne microwave weapon which would be very useful for hitting Surface to Air missile sites like the ones Russia relies on for power projection, to augment their lower-tech air force (as they've done with the recent S-400 deployment in Syria.) This microwave weapon, mounted on the small tracked vehicles used by the Buk system would be a useful point-defense weapon against cruise missiles, if the power output was high enough, and the weapon was slow enough. If its only useful against drones, then the power output is lower or the missiles are too hardened for what it can pump out - in which case you should see it as a high-power, aimable jamming system to counter attacking aircraft, with the ability to fry drones a nice secondary feature.

A nice little microcosm of the ongoing arms race. Pay attention; the toys they come up with now we'll be finding commercial uses for in twenty years.

Comment Re:Building wealth (Score 1) 490

the hot second it will help him


There was some Rockefeller back in the 20s who ran for mayor somewhere and won - his campaign slogan was "I'm too rich to be bought." Trump himself has admitted openly to what everyone knows anyway; "the money never mattered to me except as a way of keeping score." Type A personalities are self-actualized, aggressive and competetive, and their salaries are mainly a way to compete with other CEOs. No matter how wealthy you are, you can only sail on one yacht at a time. CEOs do it for the challenge.

Also, being President is a bitch. Just look at the mudflinging and character assasination - to say nothing of open hatred - being hurled his way. And that's just peanuts - what if he actually gets the job? It's no great secret that Presidents live under constant stress. We've all seen how fast people age with that burden on their shoulders. Seems like a hell of a price to pay for some fame.

Comment Re:Authorization is not Budget (Score 1) 137

I really wish I could mod you up for this. There's enough people posting angry shoot-from-the-hip comments on /. that correcting them is a sisyphean undertaking, but it's worth doing. The difference between authorizing funds and allocating them is pretty significant to the import of the original article, but I didn't even think of it till you corrected me.

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 1) 867

she's probably the best (pre-Reagan) Republican candidate that is possible, since the Dixiecrats have taken over the Republican party.

You put your finger right on it, there. They have - and the Republican base knows it. You remember the Tea Party movement some years back? Most of those reps/senators found themselves marginalized and shut out of important positions by the "establishment party" in short order. This election has seen the issue come to a head - Trump is universally loathed by the party's "old guard" and the guy who emerged as a front-runner against him was - you guessed it - a Tea Party Senator. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was and is loathed by his Congressional colleagues for his constant grand-standing and stunts on the Senate floor, much of which seems to have been done simply to build his reputation as "tough" or something - almost like he was planning to run for President all along. Thus the party's Old Boy Club had to back Cruz - a man they hated - because they hated Trump even more!

What's really telling is how Cruz was talking in the later days of the primary campaign - he actually called Trump voters "low information" and later said of Trump (after Trump had won a few important states in the primaries) that it was "time for the clowns and dancing bears" to clear out of the circus. Up until that first vote, it was possible to shrug Trump off as a demagogue who people considered entertaining, but not a serious option for President. After it, he was a real threat - because he'd received the actual votes of the people. And yet, right up to the last days of the election campaign, Cruz - and the old-guard party who'd swallowed their disgust to back him - consistently insulted the very voters they needed to back them up. They seemingly had no cognizance of a democratic system being one where the voters choice is the final arbiter of power. This is always the ultimate failure - for an excellent example, compare the backlash from Hillary's "Deplorables" comment to the similar backlash Romney received when he issued a similar insult to the other side's voters. In both cases they were talking about people who weren't going to vote for them anyway, to their own supporters - but it still impacted them negatively, because it's never a good idea to insult voters. People that would've stayed home on election day will go out and vote for your opponent just because you called them names - and they resent it.

The Republican party hasn't been representative of most Republicans for a while now, as you point out - and on top of that, they've insulted voters who think they ought to be. Even more interesting is how well Bernie Sanders did - a Ralph Nader tier candidate came within ten points of toppling and Old Party powerhouse. Like you say, she's much like a more liberal pre-Reagan Republican in many aspects, and her party knows it, which is why they flocked to the much more liberal Bernie.

Comment Re:same bullshit (Score 1) 137

I personally doubt it. Elon Musk dreams big, and more power to him - but rationality rarely impinges on his lofty aims. Private sector is currently doing (with SpaceX) what it does best - improve efficiency and reduce costs. NASA, on the other hand, blows scads of money on breaking new ground to do things with no practical value - such as landing a two-ton rover on Mars to return amazing amounts of new science. NASA should be tasked with breaking new ground (including on Mars) and private sector should be encouraged to do what they do best; reduce the costs of tilling the already-broken earth.

Slashdot Top Deals

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig