I find it amusing that every reply so far has focused on the rhetorical question at the end of your post, even though you hit the real issue on the head.
Sure, this equipment is nicely sorted and in usable condition, but is there a distribution network on the receiving end? Are there actual storefronts, or merely front companies for stripping operations? From TFA:
Benson was previously convicted of exporting similar hazardous waste to Nigeria in 2011, and was appealing against his conviction – unsuccessfully – while continuing to illegally export televisions and freezers to West Africa, the Environment Agency said.
It seems Mr. Benson has made a habit of this tactic, and should already know that his methods run afoul of export laws. It's not a case of the big bad government out to stop the little guy from bringing luxury to the third-world savages, but rather just another guy who thinks that ignoring laws makes for a good business model.
That testing is actually how I know about it. Since there's no mass inoculation effort for it in the US, I'd never heard of such a thing until I met a Frenchman who expected (and received) a false positive on a test.
Immunity is collective, as the effective protection implied by the term is only feasible if a large majority of the population participates. That choice to participate or not is personal, but the cost of not participating is also collective, as one layer of defense is lost for the whole population. The result is exactly what you see here: a greatly increased chance of exposure for everyone, and a chance at an epidemic.
The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.
Congratulations on your complete failure to understand influenza.
Flu shots "don't work" because influenza is such a simple organism. Most big organisms (pretty much anything you can see with the naked eye) have mechanisms to protect their DNA from changing too much. Cells that mutate are killed off, and offspring that mutate too much can't grow. That's why it takes thousands of years for even small changes. The benefit, of course, is that once such an organism thrives, it stays that way. There are practically no single-individual species out there (some exceptions apply).
Influenza completely lacks those mechanisms. It is free to mutate rapidly, often leading to significant differences in only a few years. Part of those significant differences are the proteins exposed to the body's immune system, so the particular strain of virus that was most aggressive one year may give way to a completely different strain for the next winter season (when human immune systems are at their weakest).
To produce a flu shot each year, researchers track the incidence rates of many different strains, and the ones that seem most troublesome for the coming year are what the vaccine protects against. There is a balance that must be struck between providing enough material for the body to develop immunity, and providing too much material, such that the person actually gets sick.
Flu shots, therefore, are not an absolute shield against the diverse array of viruses we call "influenza".
This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud
No, it only provides still more evidence that vaccines work exactly as we expect them to. There is only a good chance that a person will develop an immunity from a vaccine, and only a good chance that an immunity will protect them from the actual pathogen, so we hope to also give them a good chance to never encounter the pathogen in the first place. Skipping vaccinations increases the likelihood that you will be a safe harbor for the pathogen, greatly increasing the chances of exposure for someone whose immunity is ineffective or not even present.
Immunity is a collective endeavor. You're undermining it.
To be a "troll" would mean that I make comments to bait others into angry responses. With very few exceptions, I don't do that. I do, however, hold opinions different than your own.
I feel that the stability and predictability of following established procedures are more important than the immediate gratification of making exceptions for causes that were lucky enough to become the blessed champions of the Internet echo chamber. Sure, the so-called "establishment" makes mistakes, and injustices happen. The "establishment" is designed for that. That's why we have an appeals process and an ever-growing body of legal precedent. We make mistakes, but ultimately learn from them.
When events as momentous as Snowden's leaks occur, I think it's important to use the situation to improve our laws, and by extension the country and world. I disagree with the calls to overthrow various parts of the government, because I don't see any long-term improvement in them. Snowden's might get freedom, but wht about the other whistleblowers who come after him, and what about genuine traitors who intentionally harm, then claim "whistleblowing" as a defense? Do we treat future situations similarly, or do we craft a new "justice" for each instance according to the whims of a capricious public?
Ultimately, that's the question on which we disagree: do we, as a society, care more about the public being able to declare judgements, or to predict them? I choose the latter.
Or we could just not care too much about requirements when using a word.
"Cars" on a magnetically-levitating train are called "cars" because they are analogous to the real cars on a wheeled train. Perhaps "segments" is a better term, but now the usage is common enough that there will be no confusion in colloquial discussion.
He loves the country, not the government, no[t] the administration
How are you so sure of that? He could have just been bought off by Russia, and been paid enough to become a martyr. Are you privy to his inner thoughts?
He sacrificed for you, and for me.
So he claims... but what actual evidence do we have of this? What was the state of his financial affairs before and after his leak? What about romance? Family politics? There are many reasons why someone will choose to reveal secrets. Of course, they always claim it's for the greater good.
He should get a FAIR trial, by a jury of his peers, and all the evidence should be exposed to public scrutiny.
Well, sort of. A fair trial, certainly. However, I don't think it's appropriate to dump everything into the public eye. That's no different from any other trial, where the judge has the power to keep aspects of the proceedings secret. Do note, however, that presenting evidence at a trial must mean including all of the relevant evidence, including anything indicating that he was not acting out of a pure love for American freedom.
Or in short, your damaging activities should be isolated appropriately so that uninvolved bystanders cannot be harmed.
Okay. It should be pretty clear from my sig that I don't think any rights are absolute. Rather, I believe each right can be trumped by others, depending on the situation. Determining the hierarchy of rights for a given situation is a job for judges.
Hello, there. I'm part of that community you deny exists.
I think Snowden did something damned near treason. It's obvious that he broke the law and jeopardized aspects of national security, but the issue of mens rea is still in question. No evidence has been presented (other than his word and the government's assertions) that he was or was not acting for the benefit of society. Resolving that question is one of the primary functions of a trial, which is why I think a trial should be held. As it stands now, the victim of a crime has been denied due process, and the Slashdot hivemind is happy about it.
I also think smoking is a right, in the more general case that I believe people should be permitted to mutilate their bodies however they wish, at whatever personal expense they wish. That might mean using alcohol or other drugs, or engaging in risky behaviors like skydiving, automobile racing, or bacon eating. However, I also believe their costs to society should be suitably offset so that their choices do not cause harm to society as a whole, and their damaging activities should be isolated appropriately so that uninvolved bystanders cannot be harmed.
I'm not a paid shill. I just think a little bit before jumping on board with everything the dear hivemind thinks.
immediately accessible at the site of natural disasters.
...So a nutcase decides to start the new revolution by blowing up a park, or an incompetent building contractor builds an apartment complex that collapses... but the victims do not get the precious artificial blood, because their disaster was unnatural.
Engineers do not play well with appeals to emotion.
It makes it more likely to get money from your opponent's insurance if he kills [or otherwise injures] you on the street...
...which certainly improves financial security.
There's also the detail that to get commercial insurance, the insurer can impose further restrictions to improve their own assumed risk. A price break for having regular maintenance, good record, or practicing safe driving habits, for example, can all reduce specific risks to the driver, passengers, and bystanders.
Because this is a concern for a sports car, when most parking places are designed for vans.
or even next to the car
Gull-wing doors require less side clearance than standard doors.
they seal correctly
So do gull-wing doors, if closed with a proper path. This is the hard part, because the door system can't interfere with other systems, like the roof's roll supports. It's not an intractable problem, but it makes the overall engineering more difficult.
they don't stop you from putting a roof-rack on it
Also a big problem for sports cars, I'm sure.
mini-vans have been using electric sliding doors for decades
...And gull-wing doors have been around for half a century.
This is where knowing your parameters is important.
If you want to protect against a government, assume they have a large number of powerful computers. If you want to protect against a large corporation, assume they have a small number of very powerful computers. If you want to protect against a local power, assume a small number of fairly weak computers. If you want to decode the data easily at a given time, consider how much power you will have available by then. Maybe your project is pressworthy enough to get 20,000 distributed nodes, or maybe it's enough to get a few universities to contribute, or as mentioned before, perhaps just a benevolent corporate donation.
Ultimately, anything encrypted today has a built-in expiration date, after which it will be worthwhile for a given party to break the encryption to access whatever's inside.
Most modern cryptography works because it's difficult to solve certain math problems, but the limits of "difficult" keep getting bigger. It should be possible to make a rough estimate of how much processing power will be available to break your encryption by what date, to the parties of interest. Make your keys that strong, and hope you're close.
To build off of the Belfast Project example from TFS, a 50-year timespan might be reasonable. What kind of decryption ability might we have in 50 years? I'm no expert in cryptography, but an elliptic curve algorithm with a fairly-strong key seems reasonable to me. Encrypt it, destroy the plaintext, and forget about it. Forty-five years from now, a government might have the ability to decrypt the material, but they'd have to care, first. It might take sixty years for a data-crunching powerhouse like Google to decrypt it, and perhaps in sixty-five years, they'll see fit to run a PR stunt by unlocking the time capsule.
There's a lot of guesswork and estimation involved, but such is the nature of all time capsules. You're assuming that the capsule will be intact and unlockable at a future time, which necessarily involves predicting future capabilities.
That's correct. So with all aircraft being replaced with F-35 who it going to keep the interceptors at bay?
The F-22s, since they're not planned for replacement.
Dropping bombs without escort on the premise that you will 'not meet state of the art interceptors' is not a very hard thing is it?
No, it's not, and that's the whole point of "air superiority". An F-22-escorted bombing run can take out the airstrips and air capabilities of the enemy, then the F-35s can run missions to disrupt repairs. Those "state-of-the-art interceptors" won't be able to get off the ground. Even if they did, they wouldn't be able to dogfight, since they'd be shot down long before getting the F-35's into weapons range.
That's assuming, of course, that we're fighting in a place that even has state-of-the-art interceptors. At the moment, that's just the United States, since the F-22 isn't being exported and Russian and Chinese programs are still catching up to that.
I'm sure that all of the competition for the F-35 can do that. And most of them can do the dog fighting too...
Dogfighting is obsolete. Modern air warfare is now a dance of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, until one aircraft can get a missile locked on the other. That's the part that the older aircraft can't really do. Sure, F-18s are versatile, but they can't carry much payload. The A-10 is great for air support, but it flies like a brick. The Harriers are great for working on short and damaged runways, as long as you don't need to get anywhere else quickly.
Maybe if you took all of the good parts from older aircraft, mixed them together, and threw in modern stealth, missile, and countermeasure technology, then you'd have a good plane. Let's also not forget that by having only a single airframe design, it's easier to move parts and technicians around for maintenance. After all that... hey, look! It's the F-35!
The F-35 is designed to be a single replacement for all of the single-role craft that are becoming obsolete, with the latest stealth and warfare equipment added. It is not replacing the F-22, so it doesn't have to be a fantastic dogfighter. It's meant to deal with long-range threats are either too far away to hit it, or sitting on the ground. It's perfectly capable for that.
A cricket bat is an option, but much like the fighters from WWI, it's really only good with repeated blows against an unarmored target in a particular small area.
Unfortunately, if the rapist has planned this attack, he probably knows you have a cricket bat, and knows its weaknesses. He comes wearing a helmet and a thick shirt, so your bat will hurt, but it won't be too serious of a threat. Similarly, by WWII fighters had progressed to having better maneuverability, so earlier aircraft would be unable to hit them.
Naturally, you must improve your own weaponry to compensate, moving up to a bladed weapon, like the aforementioned axe or a knife. For fighters, that means jet engines and more guns, so the enemy can't just absorb all the damage.
The attacker evolves again. Knowing that you carry a blade, the rapist arms himself with a bicycle. It sounds ridiculous, but if he can evade your defense long enough to get up to speed, the rapist can escape without harm. Your axe, knife, sword, or ridiculously overelaborate ninja weapon are all useless because he's just too fast. Your old weapons, if you'll pardon the pun, just won't cut it any more... and neither will machine guns in the age of supersonic jet fighters.
Now you have to change your tactics. The rapist can come and go so quickly that landing blows just isn't going to be an effective countermeasure. You move up to protecting yourself with firearms. Now his bicycle is meaningless, because his speed isn't an issue any more, until he can outrun bullets. For aircraft, the parallel is the shift to missile combat.
Now, though, armor matters again. The rapist can drive a car, so you'll switch to a higher-powered weapon. Then he can add light armor to the vehicle, and you'll need armor-piercing rounds. Then he can add heavy armor, and you'll need a rocket-propelled grenade. If he gets his hands on an armored personnel carrier, he can plow into your living room, grab your wife, and drive off, and unless you have some anti-tank weaponry handy, you'll be unable to protect your wife. That $20 cricket bat won't even scratch the paint.
That's the modern state of air warfare. Long before the fighters are within visual range of each other, the pilots deploy countermeasures and break through their enemy's countermeasures, until one of them can get its missile to hit the other. Then the battle's over. None of the earlier fighter planes will be effective against such a long-range and powerful modern fighter. They wouldn't even get the chance to scratch the stealth-supporting paint.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amusing that every reply so far has focused on the rhetorical question at the end of your post, even though you hit the real issue on the head.
Sure, this equipment is nicely sorted and in usable condition, but is there a distribution network on the receiving end? Are there actual storefronts, or merely front companies for stripping operations? From TFA:
Benson was previously convicted of exporting similar hazardous waste to Nigeria in 2011, and was appealing against his conviction – unsuccessfully – while continuing to illegally export televisions and freezers to West Africa, the Environment Agency said.
It seems Mr. Benson has made a habit of this tactic, and should already know that his methods run afoul of export laws. It's not a case of the big bad government out to stop the little guy from bringing luxury to the third-world savages, but rather just another guy who thinks that ignoring laws makes for a good business model.
That testing is actually how I know about it. Since there's no mass inoculation effort for it in the US, I'd never heard of such a thing until I met a Frenchman who expected (and received) a false positive on a test.
Actually, there is a vaccine. It's pretty new, having only been around for about a century...
Welcome to Lake Wobegon High School.
Immunity is collective, as the effective protection implied by the term is only feasible if a large majority of the population participates. That choice to participate or not is personal, but the cost of not participating is also collective, as one layer of defense is lost for the whole population. The result is exactly what you see here: a greatly increased chance of exposure for everyone, and a chance at an epidemic.
The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.
Congratulations on your complete failure to understand influenza.
Flu shots "don't work" because influenza is such a simple organism. Most big organisms (pretty much anything you can see with the naked eye) have mechanisms to protect their DNA from changing too much. Cells that mutate are killed off, and offspring that mutate too much can't grow. That's why it takes thousands of years for even small changes. The benefit, of course, is that once such an organism thrives, it stays that way. There are practically no single-individual species out there (some exceptions apply).
Influenza completely lacks those mechanisms. It is free to mutate rapidly, often leading to significant differences in only a few years. Part of those significant differences are the proteins exposed to the body's immune system, so the particular strain of virus that was most aggressive one year may give way to a completely different strain for the next winter season (when human immune systems are at their weakest).
To produce a flu shot each year, researchers track the incidence rates of many different strains, and the ones that seem most troublesome for the coming year are what the vaccine protects against. There is a balance that must be struck between providing enough material for the body to develop immunity, and providing too much material, such that the person actually gets sick.
Flu shots, therefore, are not an absolute shield against the diverse array of viruses we call "influenza".
This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud
No, it only provides still more evidence that vaccines work exactly as we expect them to. There is only a good chance that a person will develop an immunity from a vaccine, and only a good chance that an immunity will protect them from the actual pathogen, so we hope to also give them a good chance to never encounter the pathogen in the first place. Skipping vaccinations increases the likelihood that you will be a safe harbor for the pathogen, greatly increasing the chances of exposure for someone whose immunity is ineffective or not even present.
Immunity is a collective endeavor. You're undermining it.
To be a "troll" would mean that I make comments to bait others into angry responses. With very few exceptions, I don't do that. I do, however, hold opinions different than your own.
I feel that the stability and predictability of following established procedures are more important than the immediate gratification of making exceptions for causes that were lucky enough to become the blessed champions of the Internet echo chamber. Sure, the so-called "establishment" makes mistakes, and injustices happen. The "establishment" is designed for that. That's why we have an appeals process and an ever-growing body of legal precedent. We make mistakes, but ultimately learn from them.
When events as momentous as Snowden's leaks occur, I think it's important to use the situation to improve our laws, and by extension the country and world. I disagree with the calls to overthrow various parts of the government, because I don't see any long-term improvement in them. Snowden's might get freedom, but wht about the other whistleblowers who come after him, and what about genuine traitors who intentionally harm, then claim "whistleblowing" as a defense? Do we treat future situations similarly, or do we craft a new "justice" for each instance according to the whims of a capricious public?
Ultimately, that's the question on which we disagree: do we, as a society, care more about the public being able to declare judgements, or to predict them? I choose the latter.
Those ancient cretins vandalized language into a byzantine mess.
Shush. You're interrupting the Two Minutes Hate.
Fair enough. I'm clearly not a railroad guy.
Or we could just not care too much about requirements when using a word.
"Cars" on a magnetically-levitating train are called "cars" because they are analogous to the real cars on a wheeled train. Perhaps "segments" is a better term, but now the usage is common enough that there will be no confusion in colloquial discussion.
The word "car" really just means a "wheeled vehicle". There is no requirement for turning.
So people keep telling me...
He loves the country, not the government, no[t] the administration
How are you so sure of that? He could have just been bought off by Russia, and been paid enough to become a martyr. Are you privy to his inner thoughts?
He sacrificed for you, and for me.
So he claims... but what actual evidence do we have of this? What was the state of his financial affairs before and after his leak? What about romance? Family politics? There are many reasons why someone will choose to reveal secrets. Of course, they always claim it's for the greater good.
He should get a FAIR trial, by a jury of his peers, and all the evidence should be exposed to public scrutiny.
Well, sort of. A fair trial, certainly. However, I don't think it's appropriate to dump everything into the public eye. That's no different from any other trial, where the judge has the power to keep aspects of the proceedings secret. Do note, however, that presenting evidence at a trial must mean including all of the relevant evidence, including anything indicating that he was not acting out of a pure love for American freedom.
Or in short, your damaging activities should be isolated appropriately so that uninvolved bystanders cannot be harmed.
Okay. It should be pretty clear from my sig that I don't think any rights are absolute. Rather, I believe each right can be trumped by others, depending on the situation. Determining the hierarchy of rights for a given situation is a job for judges.
Hello, there. I'm part of that community you deny exists.
I think Snowden did something damned near treason. It's obvious that he broke the law and jeopardized aspects of national security, but the issue of mens rea is still in question. No evidence has been presented (other than his word and the government's assertions) that he was or was not acting for the benefit of society. Resolving that question is one of the primary functions of a trial, which is why I think a trial should be held. As it stands now, the victim of a crime has been denied due process, and the Slashdot hivemind is happy about it.
I also think smoking is a right, in the more general case that I believe people should be permitted to mutilate their bodies however they wish, at whatever personal expense they wish. That might mean using alcohol or other drugs, or engaging in risky behaviors like skydiving, automobile racing, or bacon eating. However, I also believe their costs to society should be suitably offset so that their choices do not cause harm to society as a whole, and their damaging activities should be isolated appropriately so that uninvolved bystanders cannot be harmed.
I'm not a paid shill. I just think a little bit before jumping on board with everything the dear hivemind thinks.
immediately accessible at the site of natural disasters.
...So a nutcase decides to start the new revolution by blowing up a park, or an incompetent building contractor builds an apartment complex that collapses... but the victims do not get the precious artificial blood, because their disaster was unnatural.
Engineers do not play well with appeals to emotion.
And if you're getting paid for something, you'll probably do it more often, simply tempting probability more that you'll have a serious problem.
It makes it more likely to get money from your opponent's insurance if he kills [or otherwise injures] you on the street...
...which certainly improves financial security.
There's also the detail that to get commercial insurance, the insurer can impose further restrictions to improve their own assumed risk. A price break for having regular maintenance, good record, or practicing safe driving habits, for example, can all reduce specific risks to the driver, passengers, and bystanders.
No worries about clearance above the car
Because this is a concern for a sports car, when most parking places are designed for vans.
or even next to the car
Gull-wing doors require less side clearance than standard doors.
they seal correctly
So do gull-wing doors, if closed with a proper path. This is the hard part, because the door system can't interfere with other systems, like the roof's roll supports. It's not an intractable problem, but it makes the overall engineering more difficult.
they don't stop you from putting a roof-rack on it
Also a big problem for sports cars, I'm sure.
mini-vans have been using electric sliding doors for decades
...And gull-wing doors have been around for half a century.
This is where knowing your parameters is important.
If you want to protect against a government, assume they have a large number of powerful computers. If you want to protect against a large corporation, assume they have a small number of very powerful computers. If you want to protect against a local power, assume a small number of fairly weak computers. If you want to decode the data easily at a given time, consider how much power you will have available by then. Maybe your project is pressworthy enough to get 20,000 distributed nodes, or maybe it's enough to get a few universities to contribute, or as mentioned before, perhaps just a benevolent corporate donation.
Ultimately, anything encrypted today has a built-in expiration date, after which it will be worthwhile for a given party to break the encryption to access whatever's inside.
Most modern cryptography works because it's difficult to solve certain math problems, but the limits of "difficult" keep getting bigger. It should be possible to make a rough estimate of how much processing power will be available to break your encryption by what date, to the parties of interest. Make your keys that strong, and hope you're close.
To build off of the Belfast Project example from TFS, a 50-year timespan might be reasonable. What kind of decryption ability might we have in 50 years? I'm no expert in cryptography, but an elliptic curve algorithm with a fairly-strong key seems reasonable to me. Encrypt it, destroy the plaintext, and forget about it. Forty-five years from now, a government might have the ability to decrypt the material, but they'd have to care, first. It might take sixty years for a data-crunching powerhouse like Google to decrypt it, and perhaps in sixty-five years, they'll see fit to run a PR stunt by unlocking the time capsule.
There's a lot of guesswork and estimation involved, but such is the nature of all time capsules. You're assuming that the capsule will be intact and unlockable at a future time, which necessarily involves predicting future capabilities.
So who gets to keep the half that goes on the website? What's to stop them from getting subpoenaed, hacked, or otherwise compromised?
That's correct. So with all aircraft being replaced with F-35 who it going to keep the interceptors at bay?
The F-22s, since they're not planned for replacement.
Dropping bombs without escort on the premise that you will 'not meet state of the art interceptors' is not a very hard thing is it?
No, it's not, and that's the whole point of "air superiority". An F-22-escorted bombing run can take out the airstrips and air capabilities of the enemy, then the F-35s can run missions to disrupt repairs. Those "state-of-the-art interceptors" won't be able to get off the ground. Even if they did, they wouldn't be able to dogfight, since they'd be shot down long before getting the F-35's into weapons range.
That's assuming, of course, that we're fighting in a place that even has state-of-the-art interceptors. At the moment, that's just the United States, since the F-22 isn't being exported and Russian and Chinese programs are still catching up to that.
I'm sure that all of the competition for the F-35 can do that. And most of them can do the dog fighting too...
Dogfighting is obsolete. Modern air warfare is now a dance of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, until one aircraft can get a missile locked on the other. That's the part that the older aircraft can't really do. Sure, F-18s are versatile, but they can't carry much payload. The A-10 is great for air support, but it flies like a brick. The Harriers are great for working on short and damaged runways, as long as you don't need to get anywhere else quickly.
Maybe if you took all of the good parts from older aircraft, mixed them together, and threw in modern stealth, missile, and countermeasure technology, then you'd have a good plane. Let's also not forget that by having only a single airframe design, it's easier to move parts and technicians around for maintenance. After all that... hey, look! It's the F-35!
The F-35 is designed to be a single replacement for all of the single-role craft that are becoming obsolete, with the latest stealth and warfare equipment added. It is not replacing the F-22, so it doesn't have to be a fantastic dogfighter. It's meant to deal with long-range threats are either too far away to hit it, or sitting on the ground. It's perfectly capable for that.
A B-52 also lights up a radar like a Christmas tree.
Alright, let's run with this.
A cricket bat is an option, but much like the fighters from WWI, it's really only good with repeated blows against an unarmored target in a particular small area.
Unfortunately, if the rapist has planned this attack, he probably knows you have a cricket bat, and knows its weaknesses. He comes wearing a helmet and a thick shirt, so your bat will hurt, but it won't be too serious of a threat. Similarly, by WWII fighters had progressed to having better maneuverability, so earlier aircraft would be unable to hit them.
Naturally, you must improve your own weaponry to compensate, moving up to a bladed weapon, like the aforementioned axe or a knife. For fighters, that means jet engines and more guns, so the enemy can't just absorb all the damage.
The attacker evolves again. Knowing that you carry a blade, the rapist arms himself with a bicycle. It sounds ridiculous, but if he can evade your defense long enough to get up to speed, the rapist can escape without harm. Your axe, knife, sword, or ridiculously overelaborate ninja weapon are all useless because he's just too fast. Your old weapons, if you'll pardon the pun, just won't cut it any more... and neither will machine guns in the age of supersonic jet fighters.
Now you have to change your tactics. The rapist can come and go so quickly that landing blows just isn't going to be an effective countermeasure. You move up to protecting yourself with firearms. Now his bicycle is meaningless, because his speed isn't an issue any more, until he can outrun bullets. For aircraft, the parallel is the shift to missile combat.
Now, though, armor matters again. The rapist can drive a car, so you'll switch to a higher-powered weapon. Then he can add light armor to the vehicle, and you'll need armor-piercing rounds. Then he can add heavy armor, and you'll need a rocket-propelled grenade. If he gets his hands on an armored personnel carrier, he can plow into your living room, grab your wife, and drive off, and unless you have some anti-tank weaponry handy, you'll be unable to protect your wife. That $20 cricket bat won't even scratch the paint.
That's the modern state of air warfare. Long before the fighters are within visual range of each other, the pilots deploy countermeasures and break through their enemy's countermeasures, until one of them can get its missile to hit the other. Then the battle's over. None of the earlier fighter planes will be effective against such a long-range and powerful modern fighter. They wouldn't even get the chance to scratch the stealth-supporting paint.