GOCE Satellite Burned Up Over Falkland Islands 107
An anonymous reader writes with an update on the fate of the GOCE satellite. From the article: "The mystery of GOCE's re-entry has now been solved — the one-ton satellite came down over the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory 300 miles east of the Patagonian coast in the South Atlantic Ocean."
Re:All Clear! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know.
Science fail. They're both metal. Both would act as antennas unless grounded. Conversely, it would also make it easier for you to tune into Their thoughts. But let's be honest... you really don't want that. It's like googling for something innocent and getting a face full of porn and then having your boss walk by at that exact moment.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a lovely hat for you. It's fashioned from pure curium, and you'll undoubtedly be the first on the block to wear one.
Re: (Score:2)
A Face Full of Porn.
Now there's a movie title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
4.92 inches.
</Spock>
mixup at the Falkland Islands. (Score:5, Funny)
I dont think that's what they meant when they said they wanted Satellite TV.
From the not las Malvinas dept (Score:2)
Was that you Margaret?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Was that you Margaret?
Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!
Re: (Score:2)
"Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
See, now that she's gone, the world is perfect and Britain would never do anything bad like spoof slashdot.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:1)
um... hate to tell you this, but MHT had absolutely nothing to do with that. It was down to Reagan challenging Gorbachev to tear down the wall and popularist reaction to that challenge in physically tearing the wall down that ended the cold war. Thatcher was too busy going senile after not only sending our entire naval force to the Falklands to beat the shit out of the "brown bastards" who had the brass neck to claim back their territory which had previously been *annexed* in the name of the Empire, she sta
Re: (Score:2)
Was that you Margaret?
Thatcher, or Hamilton?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they would. It can't do them any less good than their war with the British, and continued attempts to convince the actual residents that they don't want to be British citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never did understand that.
It would be one thing if the residents on the island identified with being Argentinian and the majority wished to be part of that country. However, it's not.
Why does Argentina continue to assert that the island is theirs at all?
It's about the same stupidity that China engages in claiming that Taiwan is theirs.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the island were taken by force by the british before.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the island were taken by force by the british before.
Back in 1766? When MacBride attacked those penguins?
The Falklands have had been British for at least 170 years.
Re:British? (Score:5, Informative)
When the Argentinians return Argentina to the control of the natives they took Argentina from by force, then perhaps they might have a point (and not a very good one - who did the British take the Falklands from by force? No one actually lived on those islands when the British first settled there). The Falklands haven't ever been Argentinian, and furthermore the Spanish name for them (Las Malvinas) isn't even Spanish, it's derived from French (the French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville gave them the name îles Malouines derived from the name Saint-Malo in France, which became Las Malvinas in Spanish).
Saying Argentina should have them because they are close to Argentina is like saying Puerto Rico should be given to Cuba because it's closer to Cuba than the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
"Saying Argentina should have them because they are close to Argentina is like saying Puerto Rico should be given to Cuba because it's closer to Cuba than the USA."
Or Alaska given to Canada/Russia, or Ireland be put back wholly under British control, or the Chinese claim to the likes of Tibet, Taiwan and so forth formalised and accepted internationally.
You're exactly right and this highlights why the geographical argument is utter nonsense.
Beyond that the other arguments just don't go in Argentina's favour
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the same as Gibraltar, no? The dutch gave it to England... except it wasn't theirs to give.
Corrupt leadership. FTFY.
That's not true. Before the war, the islanders would
Re: (Score:2)
"Pretty much the same as Gibraltar, no? The dutch gave it to England... except it wasn't theirs to give."
Sure, but it's not Britain making the argument is it? It's Argentina.
"And if you think the UK, which has both economical (oil) and strategical (military bases) in the Malvinas would even think of letting the islanders have any real control over the islands, you're a fool."
Been swallowing your nation's propaganda I see. Tell me, what exactly do you expect us to do with a military base in the South Atlanti
Re: (Score:2)
The guys in Gibralter are happy being protected by the UK too. They've voted against becoming Spanish more than once.
All your quote states is that the UK is respecting the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in question - in your quote, Gibralter, in the South Atlantic it's the Falklands.
So fuck off back to Spain and return South America to the natives or stfu.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't. It was unoccupied when the British arrived.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's referring to the fact that when the Spanish left the British took control again, but that ignores the fact that the Spanish had already taken it from Britain/France in the first place.
So the argument is self-defeating anyway, if you argue that it's wrong for Britain to claim it back from Spanish rule after they left and told Argentina they could have it because you believe it's wrong to seize by force then you also have to accept that it was wrong for the Spanish to claim it from the original A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Argentina continue to assert that the island is theirs at all?
Oil...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/the-falkland-islands-brace-for-oil-wealth [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I never did understand that.
I do.
Most Argies don't give a fuck about those islands. However, they're a convenient excuse from Argentinian government to shift focus from whatever current problem the country has to the same old nationalist babble.
It's like that in the whole Latin America, by the way... just with different "targets".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like that in the whole Latin America, by the way... just with different "targets".
Not just Latin America. It's a favoured tactic of politicians the world over. Why do something about a real problem (that's expensive and might not work!) when you can stir up fuss and bother about foreigners?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And as "dfk" says, it's a universal government tactic.
I'm form Argentina and I've got to say it's insulting the way they use this. They not only just focuses on the target for a few months (furiously I may say) but appeal on feelings like patriotism, because the target ALWAYS want to destroy the country and the democracy. (resemble other country of America?)
The worst of all is.. a lot of people buy it.
So moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides assert that the islands are theirs because it's popular. Everyone likes to see their country have shiny things, especially if it means getting one over on another country. And it's a convenient (yuck) patriotic distraction from the governments' other failings. And the war made it much harder for their to be any sort of peaceful settlement...when hundreds of people die defending something it gets a lot harder for politicians to explain wanting to go back on their earlier position. (I think people
Re: (Score:1)
They is no doubt about the actual residents' nationality
Well, there wasn't until Maggie took it away, by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they would. It can't do them any less good than their war with the British, and continued attempts to convince the actual residents that they don't want to be British citizens.
No, they don't do that.
They claim the residents (who have been there for generations) don't have a right to self determination.
Re: (Score:1)
The people who live there aren't of Argentinian descent.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes because human populations and are trumped by position and people have no right to self determination, that is except for those people that Argentina does not want to murder or dispossess of their homes.....
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, is so hard to say that? that Islas Malvinas are 300 miles east of Argentina?
BTW, looking at the picture shown in the link, you can see how much closer is Islas Malvinas to Argentina than to other countries, like, for example, UK.
Are we going to fight that war again to the same conculsion?
Re: (Score:1)
That time the war was to distract the population from internal problems. The Argentinian government didn't think England would care enough to have people die for the land (by then no oil had been found). As everyone knows, they were wrong. Imagine the moment they realised the situation they got themselves in, and with absolutely nobody else to blame.
That said, the land should belong to Argentina. It's too problematic for the countries in the region for England to have land there. Of course, it'd be disavant
Re: (Score:2)
Those discussions are dumb and they seem to ignore the will of the people who live there. They do not want to be argentinians and they also are not that much fans of british interventions. That place is paradise for people who wants to live a simple life.
It sounds even more dumb if you consider the fact that Argentina can't even hold their shit together. They should fix their stuff before bragging about rights to that place.
Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. (Score:5, Insightful)
"That said, the land should belong to Argentina."
If it was an occupation I would agree wholeheartedly. However if what I am reading is correct the people (mostly of European decent) currently living there have been doing so for around 200 years. Even the first known settlement, around 323 years ago, was of English origin. A referendum held in march of this year had a 99.8% vote to remain a colony of the UK. People should have the ability to associate with others based on their own determination, not geographic location.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, because the stupid evils of the past generations of another country are automatically shared and agreed with by all of the current generations of that country and for that reason when any other nation decides to imitate those past generations in their evil they get a free pass for murder.....
Re:Patagonian coast, that is, Argentina. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should it belong to Argentina? No Argentinians live there. Just because it's close to Argentina isn't a justification (or perhaps the US should give Puerto Rico to Cuba because PR is closer to Cuba than it is to the USA). What's important is the population, now established for a couple of centuries, is British and wants to remain that way. They have the right to self-determination.
The Spanish name (Las Malvinas) isn't even Spanish, it's actually derived from French. A French sailor named the islands after the port of Saint Malo in France.
If the Argentinans want to argue that the British originally took it by force (from whom? no one was living there) then they need to return Argentina back to the native people they took Argentina from before taking that particular "moral high ground".
Re: (Score:1)
No they weren't. But using that logic, Argentina needs to give its land back to the natives that lived their before it was colonised by Europeans before it can claim that moral high ground.
Re: (Score:1)
Curiously France and Britain are 21 miles apart
And France and Brazil are 0 miles apart, and Brazil and Argentina are 0 miles apart.
So the Falklands/Malvinas are only 21 miles further from the UK than they are from Argentina.
Or maybe I'm making some mistake?
Re: (Score:2)
While that would be a slight improvement, Argentina spans over 1,000 miles north-south on the east-coastal region alone, so still not very specific.
If I was describing the location to somebody, I would call it "300 miles north-east of Cape Horn."
That seems much easier, obvious to folks without a strong background in prehistoric geography, and useful to real, normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
Patagonia has the 3rd largest Welsh speaking population in the world after Wales and England. Maybe Patagonia should be part of Wales, and it is after all only 300 miles away from the Falklands which is British.
Re: (Score:2)
The what? Never heard of them.
I say Falklands, you say Malvinas! (Score:2)
The British GCHQ spoofed slashdot. Now the Argentine intelligence agency will have to as well now that you called them the Falklands.
It's all about keeping up with the Thatchers. Or the Galtieris.
GOCE Satellite Burned Up Over Falkland Islands (Score:3)
I hope that it did not suffer too much.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force" (Score:5, Funny)
"As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
Re: (Score:1)
"As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
I want to know the sauce of this quote, preferably mint.
Re: (Score:2)
"As if millions of sheep suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly turned into lamb chops."
I want to know the sauce of this quote, preferably mint.
Yes they run linux
Way off (Score:2)
Someone was way off, I thought I read something this morning putting its demise somewhere around Siberia/Alaska? I'm also surprised anyone saw it, the Falkland Islands aren't exactly populated. I think its somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 people, the average 36 square mile county has that around me and the Falkland Islands are over 4,700 square miles.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably exactly why you would see it because it means fuck all light pollution and fuck all pollution from emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
"But still, Argentina has the right to ask to have them back."
Besides being close geographically what claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? At least from what I can find the only time that its population was primarily Argentinian was back around 1774-1811 when the British and Spanish (originally French) settlements were temporarily abandoned (fear of war?) until roughly the 1840s when the British settlements were reestablished. Before the Europeans colonized the islands there may have been some preh
Re: (Score:2)
Argentina believes that the French claim which was passed on to Spain was passed, in turn, to them as part of their becoming independent from Spain in 1816.
And it appears that the French claim may have pre-dated the English one by a couple of years if you're going by establishment of settlements instead of "was sailing along one day and found these islands which no one rushed to occupy".
Re: (Score:2)
Thats splitting the hair mighty thin, a couple year difference that occurred almost 200 years ago. Especially when there seemed to be absolutely no interest in the islands until the Europeans began colonizing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but apparently the first Europeans to colonize them were not English, so who does and does not have a valid claim to them isn't prefectly clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the opinions of France relevant at this point?
If they relinquished their rights to Spain in 1766, then what can they say about it now? That they actually had no rights back then and therefore defrauded Spain? Hardly a testament to their credibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Falkland Islands, or Islas Malvinas, as the Argentine people call them, are disputed territory. British forces usurped the islands from the Argentine authorities in the first half of the 19th century. OK, a stupid military government went to war to try to divert the attention of the Argentine citizens form the internal problems. And thanks to their military defeat democracy finally returned (18 months after the start of the war). But still, Argentina has the right to ask to have them back.
I dearly hope I'm not the only slashdotter who hangs around the UN, so that someone else can back me up on this.
Quite often, in the course of a meeting on something-or-other at the UN, subject-matter experts will be brought in for panel presentations.
Not terribly infrequently, one of the English-speaking experts, not knowing any better, will include a map of whatever (squid fisheries was the last one I personally recall) showing the Falkland Islands.
*ominous chord*
The delegate from Argentina will duck out o
Re: (Score:2)
The Argentinians may have the right to ask. But the population that lives there also has the right to self-determination, and they have roundly told the Argentinians to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
Yeah, they tend to take the high road, all the other roads, all the land next to all of those roads...
Re: (Score:1)
Ahhhh.... there's nothing else quite like Europeans attempting to take the "high road" in disputes over territory that once belonged to the natives.
But there were no natives. When the French settled the Îles Malouines in 1764 they were uninhabited.
Re: (Score:2)
The Falklands had no human population when the British colonised them.
and.... (Score:5, Funny)
...Argentina immediately claimed that the satellite was, in fact, theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are not. Argentina is no more legitimate a state than the Falklands themselves, and has substantially less capability to defend itself.
Stop being greedy and lusting after the oil. Or the penguins. Fucking pervert.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, impressively persistent Goatse trolling! I salute you!
Too bad it's probably more constructive than all the silly nationalist discussion threads.