"It is believed that the SA-3 crews and spotters were able to locate and track F-117A 82-806 visually, probably with infra-red and night vision systems."
Only because the French planners for NATO kept issuing the same flightplans as they were too lazy to create new ones. Just as stupidly, the U.S. didn't want to upset our allies and allowed the F-117s to keep flying the same routes. It proves that you can defeat any technology if it is poorly utilized and if the enemy is smart enough to take advantage.
I submit that upon thoroughly investigating the 9/11 evidence from both the official theory and multiple alternative theories...
It's been done, by numerous independent agencies, organizations, etc. They've all proved the conspiracy theories to be so much wishful thinking. If you can't figure out what a "duck" is after all the testimony, tests, and evidence presented, you will never be convinced, so neither I nor anyone could possibly present sufficient evidence or argument that would convince you differently. Frankly, the issue IS settled, only you want a few more minutes in the limelight and so refuse to accept the truth. THERE WAS, AND IS, NO CONSPIRACY, PERIOD.
Personally, I find your idea that MY government would even contemplate such actions to be reprehensible and a disservice to those who perished on the aircraft and in the towers that day, their families, and the men and women of our armed forces who are fighting the perpetrators in Afghanistan and other places throughout the world.
No one is. They're saying certain actions of yours violates their warranty and support policies. Go ahead, jump on it, jail-break it, load up anything you want. You own it, go for it. Just don't expect Apple or GM or whoever to fix it for you when whatever you've loaded up/modified has done serious damage. Apple has created a system that non-techie types or those who don't want to be bothered can use easily. If you are technically competent, and have the spare time and ambition, buy whatever product and modify it to your heart's content. Case in point: My kids and I own iPods. When the kids ruined the batteries on their iPods, I bought batteries from a fix-it-yourself website, replaced the batteries and doubled their playing time. I could have used Apple, but chose to do it myself and I think I got a better product for one evening's work. I also understand the consequences of my actions are such that Apple will not honor any warranty issue with those iPods, and I accept that.
IMHO, you're being way too harsh on the parent. He's correctly pointed out that human life is now being associated with a value (in this case, dollars), unlike centuries before where a value for human life for certain classes wasn't even considered.
So what is YOUR life worth?
I'm sure all of us can give you a quick answer. Do you have life insurance? If so, you've just established what your life is worth. So does that make all of us sociopaths? Because we've calculated that if we were to die, here's what it would cost to take care of our spouses, educate our children, etc. While it may be romantic to associate life with an incalulable value, it is not a practical stance. If we were to assume each human life is worth more than all the money or resources or political/scientific/military gains in the world, then nothing would be achieved for no one would dare risk anything. Was it worth it to sacrifice millions of military personnel to defeat Hitler and Tojo? I think the vast majority of us would say "yes". So, does that make FDR a sociopath for placing our youth in harm's way to achieve a political goal? No, the cost, however hard it was for the families to bear, was worth their sacrifice. As for the examples of bad businessmen, they placed personal profit above the lives of others. What we are discussing is placing the good of the nation or human race against the risks of exploring space and the cost in human life achieving those goals may incur. Two very different purposes.
That's after you spent 12 years bombing them into the stoneage.
That's after you spent 12 years containing a madman and his army after the invasion of another country, enforcing dozens of United Nations resolutions, many of which said madman chose to ignore or flagrantly violate. We honor and thank you for your willingness to shed the blood of your young men and women to fight tyranny and defend liberty around the world.
Do you trust your customers to use them in morally just ways?
Do you bother to ask that question of other industries, or just pick on the military? How about auto makers, whose products kill over 40,000 people on the roads every year, just in the United States. Do you ask that question of the automotive engineers when they design those death-dealing machines for John or Jane Q. Public who might use that vehicle in some morally unjust manner? I'm guessing you don't drink alcohol because the alcohol industry's products account for over 1.3% of all deaths around the world every year, not to mention all the morally unjust things that people do while intoxicated, right? Do you know that yearly deaths from war, total, around the world, are less than a quarter of those due to cirrhosis of the liver? Tell you what, go fix all the other causes of death and morally suspect actions and if/when war ever reaches the top ten on the list, let me know.
There are far worse things than having a military around, and the very worst I can think of, is NOT having one around. You have no concept of how much protection you get every day and every night from the brave men and women of the armed forces who guard your nation's frontiers. The militaries around the world understand that stability is a good thing and brings prosperity to all, so the vast majority of people around the world, at any time, enjoy peace, and have been for decades now. You enjoy the right of free speech and yet you spit on the people who keep giving it to you. I double-dog dare you to spend some time researching those whom you seem to abhor and you will find that most of the time the military work very hard providing all kinds of benefits and services that you now take for granted. I only wish people like you would demonstrate the strength of your convictions and paint your roof in international orange. That way, when the balloon ever does go up, we would not have to protect your life and property, and could concentrate on those who do appreciate us.
Thing being, if one state makes law allowing this, it become a de facto national law, due to the full faith and credit clause.
I disagree. Many states have laws and regulations that are not respected in other states, including the regulation of various practices, such a medicine, for example. Just because a Nurse Practicioner is legally allowed to dispense Category III narcotics in one state does NOT give him/her the right to dispense in another state. In some states, Nurse Practitioners can establish their own clinics and operate independently, but they cannot take their license and operate independently in the state of Georgia where Nurse Practitioners must, by law, be attached to a doctor's certificate to practice. (My wife is a Nurse Practitioner who just spent 5 years working to get Georgia to allow NPs to dispense medicine under their own license.)
Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege extended by the state to certain qualified individuals. As such, it is regulated and constrained by the state. There are legal age, competency, and exclusion restrictions (e.g. you can't marry someone under age 16, you can't marry someone who is insane, and/or you can't marry your sibling) that are well within the government's purview to impose on the general population.
The question in California is: Can the people impose upon the general population a restriction if a majority believe that restriction is a benefit to the population as a whole? The answer is always yes, they can. That's the whole point of having a democracy. As of now, the majority of Californians believe that heterosexual marriage is a benefit for society, and that homosexual marriage is NOT a benefit to society. So, if the majority of people living in California wish to change their constitution so as to constrain qualifications for a marriage license to heterosexual individuals, it's their right to do so. Until homosexuals can prove to the satisfaction of the majority of the people that homosexual marriage is a benefit for society, it's unlikely to change. And one sure way to entrench the mindset of the people proposing the change, is to attack their institutions of worship, as some radical factions have done.
The Reaper, Predator and smaller UAVs are controlled by humans sitting either at the operating base for takeoffs and landings, or somewhere else for the mission. The Global Hawk is autonomous, but can be remotely piloted. FAA requirements are that an unmanned vehicle must be remotely piloted over US airspace, or escorted by aircraft capable of shooting it down should it develop a mind of its own.
As for not bombing civilians, if someone would convince the bad guys to quit hiding in civilian neighborhoods, homes, crowds, etc., we'd be quite happy to not inflict collateral damage in the process of killing said bad guys.
As for cost effectiveness, although cheaper to buy, they crash a lot more. Mishap rates for the Global Hawk and Predator are much higher than for manned aircraft. Add to the the fact that in-flight support costs (ground stations, bandwidth, satellite time, etc) can be much higher for unmanned vehicles than for a manned fighter/bomber, means the debate on which is more cost effective, manned or unmanned, will be going on for some time.
...People are just another payload with unusual handling characteristics...
1) Tell that to the grieving families from the two shuttle mishaps.
2) Mishaps with people involved ALWAYS get higher levels of media attention than mishaps involving just equipment. Case in point: The Global Hawk and Predator UAVs have had a significantly higher mishap rate than manned systems, yet those are not in the spotlight as no one was hurt, despite losing millions of dollars of equipment and sensitive equipment to boot. When a launch vehicle blows up, it's headline news for about an hour, then quickly forgotten except for blooper reels. If a human is lost, it stays front and center for months/years.
(man-rated qualifications)...they are used as a barrier to competition from private launch vehicles (LV).
3) NASA is allowing private launch vehicles into the game, just not for the man-rated launches (yet). NASA just released a contract for two private launch companies to support the ISS.
The Ares V and Delta IV are designed to launch the most expensive and valuable payloads in the US market, namely, US Department of Defense military satellites and black budget spy satellites.
4) The launch parameters for those satellites are still far above those tolerable for human launches in both g-shock and vibration allowed. The EELV engines would have to be redesigned for a smoother launch, the SRBs (when used) would have to have a redesign of nozzles and burn rates. Add to that a multitude of part and upper stage redesigns for higher fault tolerances, testing, addition of telemetry, avionics, power requirements, etc. The Atlas and Delta propulsion systems are designed for sustained 6G loads, where man-rated systems are limited to sustained 3G loads.
5) Future exploration missions (Moon, at least) would require double the number of launches from an EELV system vs the shuttle-derived system, and require more on-orbit construction. Both these factors decrease the chances of success below that of the Ares system. NASA doesn't have the budget or time to redesign the Constellation program and still have a prayer of making the current timeline.
6) The Obama team is late to the party and frankly, this argument was addressed in 2005, it didn't make sense then, and it sure doesn't make sense now to convert the program over to the EELV system.
Requiring NASA to use DoD launch resources is a bad and costly idea. The reason is man-rated products versus launch-rated products. The EELVs are launch-rated, meaning for cargo only. NASA products used for the STS are man-rated, requiring significantly higher costs to develop than launch-rated products. The solid fuel booster and external fuel tanks are already man-rated systems and require far less cost to convert to the Ares system than converting launch-rated EELV systems to man-rated systems. So, NASA went with proven systems to keep costs and development times to a minimum. It's my opinion that trying to convert to the EELVs would put NASA at least another 4-5 years behind the current timeline.
No, but certain locations, aircraft configurations, and equipment ARE secret and videos/pictures of them when supposedly out collecting GPS info is grounds for interrogation and subsequent charges under the Official Secrets Act.
...the solar trend disagrees in rate, timing, and magnitude with the warming since the mid-20th century, although it explains a fair bit of the warming before then.
If by "Solar Record" you mean the sunspot cycle, it is in direct agreement with the increase in warming trends with the latter half of the 20th Century. The number of sunspots is 70% higher on average in the latter half of the last century compared to the first half, and even through comparable time periods in the 19th Century as well. As well, the number of days without sunspots is markedly lower throughout every cycle in the latter half of the 20th Century. Only this year, 2008, the sunspots are down dramatically, along with global temps. Will this be a prolonged trends? I don't know, and can't speculate, but I will be keeping an eye out for a continuing coincidence between sunspots and temperatures.
Scientists are only now discovering the link between the solar wind generation and sunspots, as well as a possible mechanism between the solar wind and energy transference to the troposphere.
Because Social Security is an entitlement program and to change it, may change votes for politicians who favor the change, or may cost votes for those who don't favor change. So, no action will be taken until absolutely necessary.
The LHC is really a giant Higgs-Boson trap, designed to appeal to the lonely H-B wandering about the universe, friendless, mateless, and now clueless as to what CERN plans to do with (him). Parades, TV Shows, maybe a little song and dance routine, and possibly a book deal is potentially in the works....
Slashdot Mirror
"It is believed that the SA-3 crews and spotters were able to locate and track F-117A 82-806 visually, probably with infra-red and night vision systems."
Only because the French planners for NATO kept issuing the same flightplans as they were too lazy to create new ones. Just as stupidly, the U.S. didn't want to upset our allies and allowed the F-117s to keep flying the same routes. It proves that you can defeat any technology if it is poorly utilized and if the enemy is smart enough to take advantage.
I submit that upon thoroughly investigating the 9/11 evidence from both the official theory and multiple alternative theories...
It's been done, by numerous independent agencies, organizations, etc. They've all proved the conspiracy theories to be so much wishful thinking. If you can't figure out what a "duck" is after all the testimony, tests, and evidence presented, you will never be convinced, so neither I nor anyone could possibly present sufficient evidence or argument that would convince you differently. Frankly, the issue IS settled, only you want a few more minutes in the limelight and so refuse to accept the truth. THERE WAS, AND IS, NO CONSPIRACY, PERIOD.
Personally, I find your idea that MY government would even contemplate such actions to be reprehensible and a disservice to those who perished on the aircraft and in the towers that day, their families, and the men and women of our armed forces who are fighting the perpetrators in Afghanistan and other places throughout the world.
Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.
No one is. They're saying certain actions of yours violates their warranty and support policies. Go ahead, jump on it, jail-break it, load up anything you want. You own it, go for it. Just don't expect Apple or GM or whoever to fix it for you when whatever you've loaded up/modified has done serious damage.
Apple has created a system that non-techie types or those who don't want to be bothered can use easily. If you are technically competent, and have the spare time and ambition, buy whatever product and modify it to your heart's content. Case in point: My kids and I own iPods. When the kids ruined the batteries on their iPods, I bought batteries from a fix-it-yourself website, replaced the batteries and doubled their playing time. I could have used Apple, but chose to do it myself and I think I got a better product for one evening's work. I also understand the consequences of my actions are such that Apple will not honor any warranty issue with those iPods, and I accept that.
maybe this whole Mayan Calendar thing is one long, wicked practical joke on the rest of the world? Cool!
I think that explains the ST TOS "Mirror, Mirror" episode much better--let's rewrite...
You've just matured. You may now leave the basement...
So what is YOUR life worth?
I'm sure all of us can give you a quick answer. Do you have life insurance? If so, you've just established what your life is worth. So does that make all of us sociopaths? Because we've calculated that if we were to die, here's what it would cost to take care of our spouses, educate our children, etc. While it may be romantic to associate life with an incalulable value, it is not a practical stance. If we were to assume each human life is worth more than all the money or resources or political/scientific/military gains in the world, then nothing would be achieved for no one would dare risk anything. Was it worth it to sacrifice millions of military personnel to defeat Hitler and Tojo? I think the vast majority of us would say "yes". So, does that make FDR a sociopath for placing our youth in harm's way to achieve a political goal? No, the cost, however hard it was for the families to bear, was worth their sacrifice.
As for the examples of bad businessmen, they placed personal profit above the lives of others. What we are discussing is placing the good of the nation or human race against the risks of exploring space and the cost in human life achieving those goals may incur. Two very different purposes.
That's after you spent 12 years bombing them into the stoneage.
That's after you spent 12 years containing a madman and his army after the invasion of another country, enforcing dozens of United Nations resolutions, many of which said madman chose to ignore or flagrantly violate. We honor and thank you for your willingness to shed the blood of your young men and women to fight tyranny and defend liberty around the world.
There, fixed it for you.
...so there is no transfer of momentum, where is the energy transfer?
The energy transfer comes from the solar wind, which is comprised mostly of electrons and protons streaming from the Sun, at about 400km/s.
Do you trust your customers to use them in morally just ways?
Do you bother to ask that question of other industries, or just pick on the military? How about auto makers, whose products kill over 40,000 people on the roads every year, just in the United States. Do you ask that question of the automotive engineers when they design those death-dealing machines for John or Jane Q. Public who might use that vehicle in some morally unjust manner? I'm guessing you don't drink alcohol because the alcohol industry's products account for over 1.3% of all deaths around the world every year, not to mention all the morally unjust things that people do while intoxicated, right? Do you know that yearly deaths from war, total, around the world, are less than a quarter of those due to cirrhosis of the liver? Tell you what, go fix all the other causes of death and morally suspect actions and if/when war ever reaches the top ten on the list, let me know.
There are far worse things than having a military around, and the very worst I can think of, is NOT having one around. You have no concept of how much protection you get every day and every night from the brave men and women of the armed forces who guard your nation's frontiers. The militaries around the world understand that stability is a good thing and brings prosperity to all, so the vast majority of people around the world, at any time, enjoy peace, and have been for decades now. You enjoy the right of free speech and yet you spit on the people who keep giving it to you. I double-dog dare you to spend some time researching those whom you seem to abhor and you will find that most of the time the military work very hard providing all kinds of benefits and services that you now take for granted. I only wish people like you would demonstrate the strength of your convictions and paint your roof in international orange. That way, when the balloon ever does go up, we would not have to protect your life and property, and could concentrate on those who do appreciate us.
These pickup lines work on
THE female quantum physicist.
There, fixed it.
Probably pretty good. After all, God does exist and billions of people have found Him.
There, fixed it for everyone...
Soo, if I close my eyes it'll be O.K. then?
In Putin's Russia, if you don't lionize him you end up dead, along with anyone who sees you get assassinated...
Did Dell previously provoke pretentious Polonium Putin's puissance?
Thing being, if one state makes law allowing this, it become a de facto national law, due to the full faith and credit clause.
I disagree. Many states have laws and regulations that are not respected in other states, including the regulation of various practices, such a medicine, for example. Just because a Nurse Practicioner is legally allowed to dispense Category III narcotics in one state does NOT give him/her the right to dispense in another state. In some states, Nurse Practitioners can establish their own clinics and operate independently, but they cannot take their license and operate independently in the state of Georgia where Nurse Practitioners must, by law, be attached to a doctor's certificate to practice. (My wife is a Nurse Practitioner who just spent 5 years working to get Georgia to allow NPs to dispense medicine under their own license.)
Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege extended by the state to certain qualified individuals. As such, it is regulated and constrained by the state. There are legal age, competency, and exclusion restrictions (e.g. you can't marry someone under age 16, you can't marry someone who is insane, and/or you can't marry your sibling) that are well within the government's purview to impose on the general population.
The question in California is: Can the people impose upon the general population a restriction if a majority believe that restriction is a benefit to the population as a whole? The answer is always yes, they can. That's the whole point of having a democracy. As of now, the majority of Californians believe that heterosexual marriage is a benefit for society, and that homosexual marriage is NOT a benefit to society. So, if the majority of people living in California wish to change their constitution so as to constrain qualifications for a marriage license to heterosexual individuals, it's their right to do so. Until homosexuals can prove to the satisfaction of the majority of the people that homosexual marriage is a benefit for society, it's unlikely to change. And one sure way to entrench the mindset of the people proposing the change, is to attack their institutions of worship, as some radical factions have done.
The Reaper, Predator and smaller UAVs are controlled by humans sitting either at the operating base for takeoffs and landings, or somewhere else for the mission. The Global Hawk is autonomous, but can be remotely piloted. FAA requirements are that an unmanned vehicle must be remotely piloted over US airspace, or escorted by aircraft capable of shooting it down should it develop a mind of its own. As for not bombing civilians, if someone would convince the bad guys to quit hiding in civilian neighborhoods, homes, crowds, etc., we'd be quite happy to not inflict collateral damage in the process of killing said bad guys. As for cost effectiveness, although cheaper to buy, they crash a lot more. Mishap rates for the Global Hawk and Predator are much higher than for manned aircraft. Add to the the fact that in-flight support costs (ground stations, bandwidth, satellite time, etc) can be much higher for unmanned vehicles than for a manned fighter/bomber, means the debate on which is more cost effective, manned or unmanned, will be going on for some time.
...People are just another payload with unusual handling characteristics...
1) Tell that to the grieving families from the two shuttle mishaps.
2) Mishaps with people involved ALWAYS get higher levels of media attention than mishaps involving just equipment. Case in point: The Global Hawk and Predator UAVs have had a significantly higher mishap rate than manned systems, yet those are not in the spotlight as no one was hurt, despite losing millions of dollars of equipment and sensitive equipment to boot. When a launch vehicle blows up, it's headline news for about an hour, then quickly forgotten except for blooper reels. If a human is lost, it stays front and center for months/years.
(man-rated qualifications)...they are used as a barrier to competition from private launch vehicles (LV).
3) NASA is allowing private launch vehicles into the game, just not for the man-rated launches (yet). NASA just released a contract for two private launch companies to support the ISS.
The Ares V and Delta IV are designed to launch the most expensive and valuable payloads in the US market, namely, US Department of Defense military satellites and black budget spy satellites.
4) The launch parameters for those satellites are still far above those tolerable for human launches in both g-shock and vibration allowed. The EELV engines would have to be redesigned for a smoother launch, the SRBs (when used) would have to have a redesign of nozzles and burn rates. Add to that a multitude of part and upper stage redesigns for higher fault tolerances, testing, addition of telemetry, avionics, power requirements, etc. The Atlas and Delta propulsion systems are designed for sustained 6G loads, where man-rated systems are limited to sustained 3G loads.
5) Future exploration missions (Moon, at least) would require double the number of launches from an EELV system vs the shuttle-derived system, and require more on-orbit construction. Both these factors decrease the chances of success below that of the Ares system. NASA doesn't have the budget or time to redesign the Constellation program and still have a prayer of making the current timeline.
6) The Obama team is late to the party and frankly, this argument was addressed in 2005, it didn't make sense then, and it sure doesn't make sense now to convert the program over to the EELV system.
Requiring NASA to use DoD launch resources is a bad and costly idea. The reason is man-rated products versus launch-rated products. The EELVs are launch-rated, meaning for cargo only. NASA products used for the STS are man-rated, requiring significantly higher costs to develop than launch-rated products. The solid fuel booster and external fuel tanks are already man-rated systems and require far less cost to convert to the Ares system than converting launch-rated EELV systems to man-rated systems. So, NASA went with proven systems to keep costs and development times to a minimum. It's my opinion that trying to convert to the EELVs would put NASA at least another 4-5 years behind the current timeline.
India doesn't foster terrorists
I think a number of Pakistanis would disagree with your statement, particularly in the Kashmir region.
GPS information is an official secret?
No, but certain locations, aircraft configurations, and equipment ARE secret and videos/pictures of them when supposedly out collecting GPS info is grounds for interrogation and subsequent charges under the Official Secrets Act.
...the solar trend disagrees in rate, timing, and magnitude with the warming since the mid-20th century, although it explains a fair bit of the warming before then.
If by "Solar Record" you mean the sunspot cycle, it is in direct agreement with the increase in warming trends with the latter half of the 20th Century. The number of sunspots is 70% higher on average in the latter half of the last century compared to the first half, and even through comparable time periods in the 19th Century as well. As well, the number of days without sunspots is markedly lower throughout every cycle in the latter half of the 20th Century. Only this year, 2008, the sunspots are down dramatically, along with global temps. Will this be a prolonged trends? I don't know, and can't speculate, but I will be keeping an eye out for a continuing coincidence between sunspots and temperatures. Scientists are only now discovering the link between the solar wind generation and sunspots, as well as a possible mechanism between the solar wind and energy transference to the troposphere.
Because Social Security is an entitlement program and to change it, may change votes for politicians who favor the change, or may cost votes for those who don't favor change. So, no action will be taken until absolutely necessary.
The LHC is really a giant Higgs-Boson trap, designed to appeal to the lonely H-B wandering about the universe, friendless, mateless, and now clueless as to what CERN plans to do with (him). Parades, TV Shows, maybe a little song and dance routine, and possibly a book deal is potentially in the works....
Because it's a 21ft model?