Slashdot Mirror

The second article, minus the paywall:

http://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_08-08-08.asp

There is something hilarious about Neal Stephenson complaining about people lacking affinity for details, I have enjoyed each of his books, but in reading them, it is clear that he likes to absolutely drown in details (So his perspective is probably at the very extreme). I think the new Star Wars films turned out the way they did because George Lucas was actually able to achieve his visions for them, rather than having to work inside some limitations (so the glitz and lack of 'geek out moments' comes from him, not from the option to put the geek out material in other mediums, he could do 15 minute CGI battle scenes, so there was no need to fill things out with a cheap shop of some guys standing around in foam rubber).

Paul Graham has a habit of forming an opinion based on his life experience and then writing a persuasive essay about that opinion, using an informative tone to bamboozle the reader. Really, there are lots of reasons people are popular or not, and there are plenty of popular sitting at his 'A' table that are geeks or smart or whatever (looking back, I sure wasn't one of those people, but I can think of many who where...).

The other article just complains about the liberal agenda present in the educational system (I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that does seem to be the ax the author is grinding), without actually backing up any of the mournful wailing it does about the state of science education in the United States (why are all those graduate students coming here?).

When the composite material burns, it gives off highly toxic fumes, hence the name "stinkbug."

Test pilots referred to it as the "wobblin goblin" due to early glitches in the computerized control system.

Check out the article "Fade to Black" http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2006/1006black.asp

Don Kerr is CIA, but traditionally the NRO and space operations have been Air Force positions. The rationale is to not have too much power over too many intelligence assets. One of the last things Donald Rumsfeld did before his departure was make Kerr director of NRO..

To what are you referring when you say "horse shit story"? Are you talking about the press release from Saint Andrew's? I'd agree that it's horse shit to think that making a model to mimic superficial aspects of solar observations for predictive purposes is "horse shit". It brings to mind a parable. Once there was a man who grew up on an island far from any shore. One day he noticed the tides rose and fell every day. Fancying himself a scientist, he set up elaborate measuring apparatus to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he devised a formula that would allow him to predict the tidal action. His formula worked well for a while but after a few weeks he noticed some errors creeping in, so he added to the formula to account for these observed tidal epicycles. Never once did he give a second thought to the cause of the tides, predictivity was his only goal. After a few months his formula started failing again, so he added more complex factors to it in order to regain his predictivity, still without ever searching for the cause of the tides. After several years and many more ad hoc modifications to his predictive formula, the man was satisfied that he could use his formula to predict with accuracy tidal action far into the future. He blindly followed his religion of predictivity until a cargo container dropped on his island and he invented polytheism and began building bamboo airplanes, forgetting all about the tides for a while. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp

If you're referring to the Saint Andrew's press release, you have a good point, it does seem to be sprinkled liberally with horse shit. Computer models that mimic superficial aspects of the sun's electromagnetic influence for predictive purposes brings to mind a parable. Think of a man who grows up alone on an island far from any shore with no contact with the outside world. One day he notices the tides rise and fall every day. He fancies himself a scientist so he sets up exquisite measuring devices to precisely measure the tides. After a few days he sees patterns and devises formulas to describe them. After a few weeks he sees his formula is inaccurately predicting the tides so he adds on to his formula to account for the observations, never once considering the cause of the tides. After a few months he finds his formula is still inadequate and makes it more complex to account for new observations, still not giving more than a nod to the fact that tides do have a cause. All he wants is predictivity. So as the years go by his formula becomes more and more complex until finally he can predict with great accuracy the coming and going of tides very far in advance. At this point, practicality gives way to prudence and the search for the cause of the tides is never even begun. This lonely man then spends the rest of his days, a devotee of the religion of predictivity, and in his ignorance he is a very good predictor of tides around his island. And he never knows what causes the tides. Shortly thereafter a cargo container is dropped on his island and he invents polytheism and starts building bamboo planes. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp

Here is an interesting question.

In a fight between 1 F-22 and 2 EuroFighters, who would prevail? If the F-22 prevails, then the F-22 is an excellent investment.

However, the United States Air Force has never claimed that 1 F-22 can beat 2 EuroFighters. I suspect that the 2 EuroFighters would reduce the 1 F-22 into a pile of smoking rubble.

It is no joke; here are some links; you have to read between the lines a little.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123011448
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBW/is _2_5/ai_n16057511
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705expeditio n.asp

and for Navy types:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/ 20060922.aspx

One of my best friends sons is Air Force, and is doing convoy escort, guarding prisoners, and he didn't volunteer for it; he is a Radar Technician.
The FACT is is that while the combat services are claiming that there is no shortage, it is a very far thing from the truth.

but I still am of the opinion that offers of financial aid will produce more allies than threats ever will. (with the possible exceptions of Poland and France)

Instead they waited until Bush puffed out his chest and made hollow threats, then called his bluff.

DGPS does the correction on a satellite-by-satellite basis. The GPS receiver must support DGPS corrections, which are uploaded to the receiver to include in its internal calculations before the separate satellites are combined to form the final result.

Remember when GPS itself was thought to be in danger back in 2000? Remember when there was talk of balancing the budget? Read this article all the way from 1996 about the military importance of GPS technology. It's worth the read.

About the NDGPS vs. WAAS debate: I work for a group that relies heavily on GPS for aviation purposes. As the number of uses for GPS expand, as they inevitably will, new technologies will spring up. NDGPS vs. WAAS is like 802.11g vs 802.11a. I think they both have a place. If the government won't support NDGPS, perhaps there is a commercial application? What are the FCC regulations on the 300KHz spectrum? If no one will pay for it, let it die, I think.

Okay, <rant>
I laughed when I read, "Therefore, when it comes to cutting the budget during tight times, programs like NDGPS are prime targets." How are we cutting costs when we just ran up a record high deficit in the last two years? I like it that we're cutting costs. Let's cut some of the really big ones, like military spending!
</rant> Couldn't resist.

Columbia's crew died because small pieces of foam falling off tanks got to be routine, and eventually after 100 missions a big one fell off...

You know, I've always wondered what part composite aging might have played. Materials scientists tend to know little about how composite materials like the RCC panels age, especially in the harsh environment they had to endure -- radiation, violent temperature swings, et cetera -- and especially over the 20 years or so between Columbia's fabrication and the accident. Plus, unlike metals, composites are a bit notorious for showing no outward signs at all that they are about to fail, for looking perfectly sound even when they are so rotten that they'll suddenly and catastrophically fail under stresses they easily stood before.

Here for example is a story about some of the problems the USAF is running into now with the F-15 wing, which is composite and approaching 20 years old in many aircraft, e.g. the linked article notes an F-15 coming apart midflight in 2003 because of a sudden failure of the wing, and yet routine inspections every 200 hours had shown no signs of incipient failure.

If Columbia's accident was the result of this kind of failure, it's a lot harder to blame the designers, engineers, and even management for failing to prevent it -- because it involved the emergence without any warning of a completely unforeseeable materials failure mode. Essentially, the impact of the foam was a trivial hazard, easily withstood by the airframe for almost all of the 20 years Columbia flew. And then, by incredibly bad luck, the aging of the RCC material made the stuff just suddenly become ridiculously fragile, to the point where an oversize bird turd could crack it. And it did so with no outward signs of weakness at all.

That would make Columbia's accident pretty much a pure act of God, beyond the ability of mortal men to foresee and prevent. Indeed, I think one of the lessons of Columbia should probably be that these things still happen, that materials and systems can fail in totally unforeseen ways, even with the best engineering talent and the best management will in the world.

No.
SAC is likewise gone, absorbed into Air Combat Command. They quit flying round the clock alert long, long ago. After Desert Storm (1991) there were no longer B-52's on 15 minute ground alert.

A little history on the BUFF.

The most famous robot kill was on November 3, 2002, when a Predator UAV equipped with a Hellfire missile blew up "six suspected Al-Queda terrorists" in Yemen.

That's just the beginning. Once the technology developed in the DARPA Grand Challenge really gets rolling, which, according to the director of DARPA, will be in about five years, America's armies of killer robots will go into the field. The Army calls this the "Future Combat Systems" program.

I think this is in response to commercial GPS systems. According to Air Force Magazine (see pg 23 (PDF)), we have 28 servicable. I recall that they launched a few GPS birds about a year ago from Nellis AFB as well. Again, I think this article pertains to civilian GPS services, which practically speaking, isn't nearly as important as maintaining military coverage (especially if the Chinese are trying to reinvent the system and Europe wants to play ball with them).

the biggest recipients of Oil Vouchers (which are, well, you know, VOUCHERS, not actual oil, or actual money) were US citizen and corporations.

Of course - the whole point of the oil-for-food system was to actually promote the continuing sale of Iraqi oil so that the proceeds to feed the Iraqi people, despite their glorious leader's bad habit of attacking neighboring countries or local ethnic minorities. Much of that business was done through US companies, just like it was done through companies all over the world (oil is used everywhere, don't you know). The issue is the personal receipt of those vouchers by people who used them in various forms of influence peddling. At least a couple of unscrupulous American oil traders used them for personal profit. I was referring to the receipt of them by officials (say, in France) who either themselves, or through their close associates, were able to loudly proclaim their commitment to using French security council veto power to block any UN sanction of force to remove Saddam. The Russians (another huge recipient, and shady dealer in the vouchers) pretty much said the same thing, only in even more absolute terms). Hell, both countries made regular press releases to that effect. It's one thing for people in the oil business, who trade oil every day, to buy oil vouchers from Iraq. It's quite another to receive them as "gifts" in the same period of time that you're saying Saddam should be left alone in his brutality.

"shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day" care to back that with a link? Can't find one? Yeah, thought so.

"Every day" as in "every day that they could re-assemble the anti-aircraft hardware that UK and US pilots continually destroyed when/wherever they could find it." Usually they found it by tracing the targeting radar signals and fire they were taking from it. On a first page of Google results, here is an example of a typical month or two of Iraqi AA facilities illuminating and/or shooting (once in range, if allowed by the pilots) at patroling aircraft. Or here, where a Washington Post correspondent mentions the hundreds of engagements that started to ramp up after 1998 when Saddam had started to rebuild is AA facilities (with, of course, oil-for-food money). Or here, where CNN mentions Iraq firing SA-2 missiles into Kuwaiti airspace trying to knock down observation planes over the southern no-fly zone. Or here, where pilots mention the hundreds of such encounters that started to increase after 1998. Or, articles like this
Soooo, which ethnic groups did saddam target during the "Oil for Food" program

I was referring more to the general subjugation of the Shia majority to the Sunni minority. Goes without saying that the Kurds got the shaft starting way back in the 1970s. Under the northern no-fly zone, though, which also precluded the movement of any Iraqi military hardware in that area, the Kurds actually built up substantially better lives (through trade with their northern neighbors) and were in a much better position to thrive when Saddam was completely taken out of the picture. Under the protection of the no-fly enforcement, the Kurds evolved an independent political entity that defined a de facto state including ministries, a parliament, central banking/currency, and a functional bureaucracy. Knowing they weren't getting attacked by Saddam any longer, they didn't bother waiting for his inevitable demise. The investment in that Kurdish infrastructure only came because of trust in the ongoing protection from the no-fly operations.

Electronically, the JAS-39 is pretty cool because multiple JAS-39 combine their radars to form a single view of the battlespace. It's also more maneuverable than our own F-16. Because the JAS-39 is a smaller aircraft, it does not compete with the F-15. However, as it stands, the -only- aircraft that the USA produces that really outclasses all European fighters is the F-22. The EF-2000 and Rafale are at least as good as, if not better, than our own F-15 variants.

I don't know where the Navy's new FA/18s stand with respect to the above.

F 16 Net

Air Force Association

My links dont seem to work . So here are the links
SU 30 MKI http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-f18-su3 0-1.html
Article
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Oct2004/1004train.asp

This guy was the F-15E pilot.

While I'm not so sure about the space plane concept, this is a good history of the research to date. It seems that as speeds increase beyone mach 5-8, thermal management becomes an issue. In most cases, the additional complexity and weight of an active thermal management system renders the current implementations less effective than conventional rocket-based systems.

They got it from the Hart Rudman report issued in January, 2001. The Bush administration was too busy trashing the economy in early 2001 to pay attention to the important warnings in that report, but 9/11 forced them to.

I hate to feed the trolls but criminy...

can only be useful in the context of searching for and downloading hardcore or violent pornography

The emphasis is in the original post and it's an utterly ridiculous claim. Trust me, these fantastic features are every bit as useful and functional for downloading and cataloging even low-key, family-friendly porn that has nothing to do with whips, chains, or farm animals in leather pants.

Besides which, your cheap attempt to inject a little extra hype carries a distinct tone of shrill hysteria, which detracts from any attempt at a more reasoned argument. Your attempt to use one narrow aspect of the whole broad, rich spectrum of glorious pornography is misleading enough that it probably has its own latin name.

I guess it also goes without saying that the uses for tabbed browsing are limited only by the imagination and intelligence of the person who browses.

Consequently, your options may be severely limited. Let me help you get started.

• The glorious power of tabbed browsing:
• Allows you to open up every category of the Chadwick's Catalog at once
• You can do a Google search for "Moral Purity" and open each result in its own tab
• Each article on the American Family Association's Website can be opened in its own tab. You can read the current article while the others load.
• You don't have to use Firefox's handy extensions on pictures of porn. Because Satan and his Mozillian Minions made them available through the GPL for free, you can use them to collect and trade pictures of Jesus or even pictures of beautiful cathedrals, without ever worrying that your licensing fee will be used to fund sex-correction surgery for a 16-year old Taiwanese lady-boy.
• If you have Bible questions, you can open a tab for each answer, drastically reducing the amount of time it takes to hide those words in your heart.
• Tabbed browsing is so useful that you can go to the Anti-Porn Guy's website and open each of his informative links in its own window to find others who will help you with your crusade against tabbed browsing.

To sum up: tabbed browsing is your friend. Whether you are cruising www.hotasiansluts.com or www.jesus.com, tabbed browsing can make your internet experience faster, easier, and better.

The Dalai Llama
...tab for the children...

P.S. - I gather that your tirade against tabbed browsing is a recurring theme. Feel free to bookmark this post and refer to it as needed.

Well when things like Predators cost $2.5 Million USD each, hell no.

Hmm, two opposing assertions, it's time for a reference :-)

http://www.afa.org/magazine/April1996/0496gpsin.as p

In fact, GPS satellites broadcast two different kinds of time signals. The first is the Coarse Acquisition signal, or C/A-code. Designed for nonmilitary users, it provides position information accurate to about 100 meters. The second signal is the encrypted Precision signal, or P-code. Intended for US military or other authorized recipients, it is accurate to within twenty meters.

They go on to say that the C/A-code has at times been intentionally degraded further at times, but when their own troops only had commercial receivers, during the Gulf War, it was fixed.

Anyway, yeah, you were right :-)

Unmanned spydrones like the Predator perhaps?

I'd like to remind you of the fact that even though NASA is very glad to have won the race to the moon, there was no such thing.

Some respected commentators would dispute this 'fact', for example James Oberg.

1. Perhaps we should define the term "carpet bombing." My first link included this RealVideo clip where Mr Pentagon Spokesman makes the following statement: "If the targets are large or widedespread, then it would seem logical that we might find largbe bombers with large loads are capable of attacking it just as effectively s a number of smaller tactical jets." That sounds like carpet bombing to me. What do you think carpet bombing means?

2. A B-52 would almost never be called upon to drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle. If they are so accurate, then why did we invent cruise missiles? And even if we can, consitently and reliably, drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle from altitude, a B-52 carries 30 tons of bombs, which, when all released over target, tend to product the "carpet" effect.

3. Did I complain that U.S. troops are too well equipped? No, I simply pointed out the disparaty. I suppose by your definition, I'm In Harm's Way when I drive to work because my little japanese car could potentially be crushed by that big truck. It rarely happens, though. Similarly, U.S. casualties rarely happen, last I checked there's more friendly fire deaths in combat than enemy fire deaths. Hmm, maybe you're right, anytime troops are deployed, they are In Harm's Way because you never know when some renegade National Guard pilot is going to ignore orders twice and decide to bomb the Canadians anyway.

If you're looking for someone who is complaining that U.S. troops are too well-equipped, that would be NATO.

4. Fine, we haven't caused 4,000 or 11,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The numbers you provide are between 600 and 5,000. So, let me repeat my question? What about the civilian deaths in Afghanistan (and Yugoslavia?) Is 600 to 5,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan accetpable? That'a a lot of bombs that missed the 10-meter circle if you ask me. What about use of cluster bombs in cities in Yugoslavia? Was that planned to minimize civilian casualties? Your non-response is that since my number was off (and who will ever know the exact number) then my argument is invalid. Unless you actually believe that air wars produce NO civilian casualties, in which case I would refer you to back to Dresden.

5. You are absolutely correct that WTC attacks were attacks on a civilian population. I was trying to make the point that it wasn't *just* an attack on a civilian population. It had deep symbolic significance. It was an attack on civilians, but also an attack on the perceived Excesses of the West.

6. I'm saying that the "dual use" standard knowingly puts civilians at risk. The attacks of 9/11 are just about as morally bankrupt as the destruction of Iraq's water supply in the Gulf War. Both led to tremendous civilian casualties, and had a much larger impact on the civilian populous than the military.

7. Believe it or not, I read that Atlantic article a few months ago. Post-Gulf War civilian deaths have nothing to do with the destruction of Iraq's drinking water, and that the "food for oil" program makes up for the medicine and technology which is banned by the sanctions. That must be why UN officials have resigned in protest over the sanctions. Maybe we would have finished the job in '91 if we actually cared about civilians. George Bush's post-War speech urging the Iraqi people to revolt, backed up with exactly 0 tanks, pretty much shows how little we cared.

8. We are a free nation which was brutally attacked by terrorists. So we don't have to concern ourselves with civilian casualties?

What about the many brutal regimes the U.S. has supported over the years, butchers like Pinochet and Suharto? Wake up, we have no moral high ground in the world. Neither does anyone else. Maybe Mother Teresa and Gandhi.

The problem with having the moral high ground is that your morals are unique to you and not really a basis for a rational foreign or military policy. Morally, Osama bin Laden is just as entitled to his belief of Death to America as I am to my belief that he should rot in a collapsed cave somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. None of that will ever convince us that the other is "right."

Now, clearly the 9/11 attacks were brutal and horrible. I submit that ANY TIME that civilians are killed it is a horrible thing. And the U.S. government does it ALL THE TIME. It's far easier and politically convenient to incur a few unfortunate foreigner civilian casualties (that our own military only barely acknowleges) than to send the boys home in body bags.

That, my friend is the definition of moral bankruptcy. But that's just my definition of moral bankruptcy, yours may be completely different.

The facts remain, though. We did carpet bomb Afghanistan. We did kill civilians in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. To me that is an outrage; to you it's not.

So the 1986 attack on Libya hit Gaddafi's home by accident? And the CIA never planned the assassination of Castro? And the USA had nothing to do with the assassination of Allende in Chile?

I really think that good humor should be in good taste.

I do not, nor to millions of other people. I enjoy southpark. I enjoy The Stile Project. If you don't, then that's your choice.

I would rather not see articles and comments praising South Park for its humor and originality and tunefulness, and forgetting the fact that vulgar language is an ugly black mark on those who use it. I don't care if you think I'm old-fashioned, I just don't like it!

Southpark isHumorous, and original, and truthful. The articles are not wrong, regardless of what you think is 'appropriate'. That little "black mark" is worth millions, because not everybody agrees with you. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are some American Family Assoc. news sites that you can visit. The rest of us will continue to enjoy our lives, regardless.

[ c h a d o k e r e ]

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.