Kind of like how in the 80s cars all started to look the same, stealth aircraft do too. With current materials theres only so many ways to get what they are achieving.
At the time it was shot down the F-117 was 15-20 year old technology already. For stealth the generations kinda go like this.
First - U-2/SR-71/D-21 Second - F-117/B-1B (it has a small radar cross section to for its size) Third - F-18 E/F/G, Rafale, Typhoon (stealth technologies to reduce signature) Fourth - B-2/F-22/F-35 Fifth - ?
It doesn't create jobs? So if the military aerospace went away, where would those aerospace workers go? With the state of the economy right now, they'd be out of work.
And look at the wrangling over the KC-X program, why are Senators getting involved, because who ever wins will bring jobs to the site that does the production.
O'Reilly has been an insufferable ass-hat his entire career.
He was so annoying before, during and after 9/11.
I don't watch the Daily Show, or Colbert, but I recognize that John Stewart (whom I've been a fan of for years and watched when he took over the DS) is liberal, but he is able to present the news and a good representation of the news without having his bias take over.
Thats something that has been missing for years. Cronkite was able to do it, some of the CPB folks did it, but from Rather on it was lost.
CNN lost their ability to be neutral in the mid 1990s, I blame the Clinton fiascos from '96-'99. The fact that CNN was "reporting" from Iraq from 1990-2003 and reporting on what the Iraqi government wanted is a glaring sign of how far they fell.
Some cancers come at you quick. My first cancer was when I was seven, my second cancer was caused directly from treatment I had (ionizing radiation) nine years before.
Thats because countries with National Healthcare put limits on how much a drug cost. So Big Pharma moved to countries without limits (US for one) and charge different rates depending on the country.
Some say it'll cost more from slowing economies to reduce CO2.
The Germans said recently that an agreement is needed because Germany has environmental constraints that other industrialized nations don't have and so they need an agreement so everyone is shackled.
Skeptical Environmentalist talks about it, I don't have a copy with me up here in Alaska, so I can't cite it.
Same with the bit about Germany, I read it last month.
"And here in lies my major problem with you. Your hole post is a bunch of hand-waving and innuendo, but you don't actually back up anything you say."
Thats the whole problem right now. CRU and who knows how many others have been lying, cheating and making the models fit what they want them to show.
No one knows how climate change on a global scale works. No one. Right now a bunch of people are saying that because the climate is changing right now and there is more CO2 in the air, then that is what is changing it. I'm sorry I didn't cite it, but the fact is, the planet warmed up and got cold faster and more dramatically before man burned fossil fuels. If you've seen a glacial valley in Western Europe or North America you've seen the evidence of this.
"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." I don't see that blaming man for global climate change is going to fix it.
Geological history of the planet shows that the climate changes without man. We'd be better off coming up with technology to lessen the impact of climate change than to fight something we don't know the mechanism of.
But that is what we are talking about. The entire point of the climate change treaties are to "roll back" CO2 output and/or to lower temperatures to that of various years.
If the climate change isn't AGW (and I don't think it is), then we are talking about terraforming Earth by fighting with the climate change that is going on to make everything the way it was, or the way we want it to be.
With that mindset, what the hell would we be talking about doing if things were as a chaotic and rapidly changing as during the Dryas periods? Would there be a Rio conference on nuking the glaciers?
For your driving analogy, please. I just moved up to Alaska from Portland Oregon, it didn't take more than a couple drives to work to know how to drive in snow and ice.
If we are going to stop GCC by limiting fossil fuels and limiting CO2, its going to cost by reducing economic growth.
Yes, I know that the levels are "unprecedented", but the speed of the changes and amount of change are not unprecedented when we look at historical changes. When we look at changes since Man has been fully evolved, they still are not unprecedented changes.
"Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenario (SRES) A1B, by the mid-2090s global sea level will reach 0.22 to 0.44 m (8.7 to 17 in) above 1990 levels, and is currently rising at about 4 mm (0.16 in) per year."
"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP) in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so. Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15C colder during the Younger Dryas than today."
During the Bølling oscillation the sea level rose more than 100 m due to glacial melt. And that all happens without spikes in CO2.
I bet there is a natural process which for the last 2.85 MY has been driving these events.
Exactly, CO2 is "to the highest level in a million years (according to ice cores)." We have evidence of dramatic climate shifts in the last million years, heck in the last 12,000 years, but the CO2 didn't cause those shifts.
CO2 didn't cause the Last Glacial Maximum or Late Glacial Maximum, slow it or reverse it, so why the heck am I supposed to believe that magically CO2 is causing climate shifts now. It hasn't for the last 1 million years.
From WP
"Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present) in which permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets have occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet)."
So for 2.85 MY we've been in an ice age, they've come and gone, without spikes in CO2. So now the glaciers are retreating and the climate is shifting, the past shows that it does so without CO2 spiking, so why all of a sudden is CO2 the driving force behind this glacial retreat?
Its not BS if he disabled scheduled sleep or power off/wake up cycling so the computers would crunch more numbers.
For ten years, and if he ran them during the off time at the district. District where I worked 95% of machines were off from middle of June to late August. If those were left on to crunch SETI@home, thats a big chunk of time and power.
Not to mention if the labs were running and putting out more heat, then the HVAC ran more.
Here is my problem with the AGW debate, and feel free to slap me around for it, not going to change my mind.
The planet's climate is changing, yea, thats a given. The planet's climate has changed before, drastically and at very high rates of change, much much quicker and more dramatically than what is going to happen in the next 91 years (according to models).
Those dramatic changes happened without man burning fossil fuels. Younger Dryas and the defrosting after happened without AGW. Ice ages came and went without it being man's fault. Are we going to have a glacial lake Missoula ravaging Oregon/Washington/Idaho every 50 years from AGW...no, in the grand scheme of climate change during the history of man, this is minor.
The climate changes with or without us, if there were glaciers and it dropped the sea level, a country like the US would gain vast amounts of land, good farmland, so why do we want to terraform Earth to 1990 or 2000 standards and leave it there?
Because thats what we are talking about with stopping climate change, terraforming the world to a "perfect" point in time.
Things change, there are big sweeping cycles of ice advancement and withdrawal. Right now the ice is retreating, if man had gotten to this tech level 13,000 years ago we'd be debating the massive flooding that was going to happen when the glaciers leave the US.
"OMG soon Lake Missoula won't exist! What will we do when the 300 foot waves don't come every 50 odd years!!!"
And if everyone deunionized or agreed not to strike there wouldn't be a problem either.
Its not an issue about the workers, the issue at Boeing for example is the union leadership. They knew after the last strike they had Boeing dead to rights, they can strike and throw Boeing's production timeline off, they can screw with the stock price. Boeing wanted to build a second 787 line, they ask the union for a promise not to strike but do agreements with binding arbitration. Union leadership said nope, thus begins Boeing leaving Washington.
When it comes time for a third 787 plant and if they win, a 7x7 tanker line those won't be in Washington either. Strong union up there in Washington sure, but at what cost to Everett and Renton's economy? Washington loses and California, Kansas and/or Texas win.
Should being on call be worth something? Sure, 1/4 time and if you are called in, full time, if its a weekend or holiday then bonus pay for those times.
No unions, no binding arbitration work just fine in the tech industry, Intel, Microsoft, Apple workers, to name a few, do just fine.
Look at how well striking as a tool is working for Boeing and the state of Washington. Now that the workers know they can screw with Boeing's bottom line and hold it hostage, Boeing is moving production to locations that are no longer unionized.
I can't give blood, had blood cancer, and the restriction isn't about visiting Africa...
"You may not donate if you received a blood transfusion in certain countries in Africa since 1977. This requirement is related to concerns about rare strains of HIV that are not consistently detected by all current test methods"
OK...well if this does no harm in perpetuating stereotypes about blood typing and behavior, you know something the Nazis liked to spout, then how the hell does creationism in school hurt anyone?
Whats the difference in saying A+ people are more likely to be mass murderers and saying Jesus rode a Dinosaur when he salted Carthage?
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like how in the 80s cars all started to look the same, stealth aircraft do too. With current materials theres only so many ways to get what they are achieving.
At the time it was shot down the F-117 was 15-20 year old technology already. For stealth the generations kinda go like this.
First - U-2/SR-71/D-21
Second - F-117/B-1B (it has a small radar cross section to for its size)
Third - F-18 E/F/G, Rafale, Typhoon (stealth technologies to reduce signature)
Fourth - B-2/F-22/F-35
Fifth - ?
It doesn't create jobs? So if the military aerospace went away, where would those aerospace workers go? With the state of the economy right now, they'd be out of work.
And look at the wrangling over the KC-X program, why are Senators getting involved, because who ever wins will bring jobs to the site that does the production.
Serbia - Yea for a couple of the nights, the MiG-29s they had did alright in light of the odds they faced.
Bosnia, we knocked down some of their planes while their SAMs took out one of our F-16s.
There are better pictures out there, including one of it on the ground.
At least people think its the RQ-170, if its not, there are two strange planes out there.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/kandahars-loch-ness-mystery-pl.html
If you have blood on your hands you are doing it wrong.
Guns let you have some standoff distance so you don't get splatter.
O'Reilly has been an insufferable ass-hat his entire career.
He was so annoying before, during and after 9/11.
I don't watch the Daily Show, or Colbert, but I recognize that John Stewart (whom I've been a fan of for years and watched when he took over the DS) is liberal, but he is able to present the news and a good representation of the news without having his bias take over.
Thats something that has been missing for years. Cronkite was able to do it, some of the CPB folks did it, but from Rather on it was lost.
CNN lost their ability to be neutral in the mid 1990s, I blame the Clinton fiascos from '96-'99. The fact that CNN was "reporting" from Iraq from 1990-2003 and reporting on what the Iraqi government wanted is a glaring sign of how far they fell.
Depends on the cancer.
Some cancers come at you quick. My first cancer was when I was seven, my second cancer was caused directly from treatment I had (ionizing radiation) nine years before.
When CNN started defending the Administration by critiquing a Saturday Night Live skit, I knew they were less honest than Fox.
And no, I don't remember when O'Reilly was ever watchable.
Fark headlines are more honest than most of the news media out there right now.
Yes, because getting 33,000 dollars out of a car that cost 80,000-100,000 was idiotic.
Thats because countries with National Healthcare put limits on how much a drug cost. So Big Pharma moved to countries without limits (US for one) and charge different rates depending on the country.
Some say it'll cost more from slowing economies to reduce CO2.
The Germans said recently that an agreement is needed because Germany has environmental constraints that other industrialized nations don't have and so they need an agreement so everyone is shackled.
Skeptical Environmentalist talks about it, I don't have a copy with me up here in Alaska, so I can't cite it.
Same with the bit about Germany, I read it last month.
"And here in lies my major problem with you. Your hole post is a bunch of hand-waving and innuendo, but you don't actually back up anything you say."
Thats the whole problem right now. CRU and who knows how many others have been lying, cheating and making the models fit what they want them to show.
No one knows how climate change on a global scale works. No one. Right now a bunch of people are saying that because the climate is changing right now and there is more CO2 in the air, then that is what is changing it. I'm sorry I didn't cite it, but the fact is, the planet warmed up and got cold faster and more dramatically before man burned fossil fuels. If you've seen a glacial valley in Western Europe or North America you've seen the evidence of this.
"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." I don't see that blaming man for global climate change is going to fix it.
Geological history of the planet shows that the climate changes without man. We'd be better off coming up with technology to lessen the impact of climate change than to fight something we don't know the mechanism of.
But that is what we are talking about. The entire point of the climate change treaties are to "roll back" CO2 output and/or to lower temperatures to that of various years.
If the climate change isn't AGW (and I don't think it is), then we are talking about terraforming Earth by fighting with the climate change that is going on to make everything the way it was, or the way we want it to be.
With that mindset, what the hell would we be talking about doing if things were as a chaotic and rapidly changing as during the Dryas periods? Would there be a Rio conference on nuking the glaciers?
For your driving analogy, please. I just moved up to Alaska from Portland Oregon, it didn't take more than a couple drives to work to know how to drive in snow and ice.
If we are going to stop GCC by limiting fossil fuels and limiting CO2, its going to cost by reducing economic growth.
Yes, I know that the levels are "unprecedented", but the speed of the changes and amount of change are not unprecedented when we look at historical changes. When we look at changes since Man has been fully evolved, they still are not unprecedented changes.
"Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenario (SRES) A1B, by the mid-2090s global sea level will reach 0.22 to 0.44 m (8.7 to 17 in) above 1990 levels, and is currently rising at about 4 mm (0.16 in) per year."
"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP) in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so. Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15C colder during the Younger Dryas than today."
During the Bølling oscillation the sea level rose more than 100 m due to glacial melt. And that all happens without spikes in CO2.
I bet there is a natural process which for the last 2.85 MY has been driving these events.
Exactly, CO2 is "to the highest level in a million years (according to ice cores)." We have evidence of dramatic climate shifts in the last million years, heck in the last 12,000 years, but the CO2 didn't cause those shifts.
CO2 didn't cause the Last Glacial Maximum or Late Glacial Maximum, slow it or reverse it, so why the heck am I supposed to believe that magically CO2 is causing climate shifts now. It hasn't for the last 1 million years.
From WP
"Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present) in which permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets have occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet)."
So for 2.85 MY we've been in an ice age, they've come and gone, without spikes in CO2. So now the glaciers are retreating and the climate is shifting, the past shows that it does so without CO2 spiking, so why all of a sudden is CO2 the driving force behind this glacial retreat?
Its not BS if he disabled scheduled sleep or power off/wake up cycling so the computers would crunch more numbers.
For ten years, and if he ran them during the off time at the district. District where I worked 95% of machines were off from middle of June to late August. If those were left on to crunch SETI@home, thats a big chunk of time and power.
Not to mention if the labs were running and putting out more heat, then the HVAC ran more.
Here is my problem with the AGW debate, and feel free to slap me around for it, not going to change my mind.
The planet's climate is changing, yea, thats a given. The planet's climate has changed before, drastically and at very high rates of change, much much quicker and more dramatically than what is going to happen in the next 91 years (according to models).
Those dramatic changes happened without man burning fossil fuels. Younger Dryas and the defrosting after happened without AGW. Ice ages came and went without it being man's fault. Are we going to have a glacial lake Missoula ravaging Oregon/Washington/Idaho every 50 years from AGW...no, in the grand scheme of climate change during the history of man, this is minor.
The climate changes with or without us, if there were glaciers and it dropped the sea level, a country like the US would gain vast amounts of land, good farmland, so why do we want to terraform Earth to 1990 or 2000 standards and leave it there?
Because thats what we are talking about with stopping climate change, terraforming the world to a "perfect" point in time.
Things change, there are big sweeping cycles of ice advancement and withdrawal. Right now the ice is retreating, if man had gotten to this tech level 13,000 years ago we'd be debating the massive flooding that was going to happen when the glaciers leave the US.
"OMG soon Lake Missoula won't exist! What will we do when the 300 foot waves don't come every 50 odd years!!!"
And if everyone deunionized or agreed not to strike there wouldn't be a problem either.
Its not an issue about the workers, the issue at Boeing for example is the union leadership. They knew after the last strike they had Boeing dead to rights, they can strike and throw Boeing's production timeline off, they can screw with the stock price. Boeing wanted to build a second 787 line, they ask the union for a promise not to strike but do agreements with binding arbitration. Union leadership said nope, thus begins Boeing leaving Washington.
When it comes time for a third 787 plant and if they win, a 7x7 tanker line those won't be in Washington either. Strong union up there in Washington sure, but at what cost to Everett and Renton's economy? Washington loses and California, Kansas and/or Texas win.
Should being on call be worth something? Sure, 1/4 time and if you are called in, full time, if its a weekend or holiday then bonus pay for those times.
No unions, no binding arbitration work just fine in the tech industry, Intel, Microsoft, Apple workers, to name a few, do just fine.
Look at how well striking as a tool is working for Boeing and the state of Washington. Now that the workers know they can screw with Boeing's bottom line and hold it hostage, Boeing is moving production to locations that are no longer unionized.
I can't give blood, had blood cancer, and the restriction isn't about visiting Africa...
"You may not donate if you received a blood transfusion in certain countries in Africa since 1977. This requirement is related to concerns about rare strains of HIV that are not consistently detected by all current test methods"
OK...well if this does no harm in perpetuating stereotypes about blood typing and behavior, you know something the Nazis liked to spout, then how the hell does creationism in school hurt anyone?
Whats the difference in saying A+ people are more likely to be mass murderers and saying Jesus rode a Dinosaur when he salted Carthage?
"Public service". Right there in the job sector, kind of tells you why they should be working all the time.
People pay taxes for those services, those services are in place to support the people, rich, poor, tax payer or welfare recipient.
I wonder what folks would have said if the National Guard would strike during a natural disaster or upon being ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you go into public service, you are going to work for the citizens and non-citizens who rely on the government providing the service.
All my work life has been farming and public sector, so my milage varies.