Not spherical, cylindrical, like an air hockey puck. With a decent size press we could create merchants in that shape, and, while frictionless is obviously unattainable, an air hockey table comes pretty close. Give me that and I'll believe in the ideal of a free market.
collusion and general douchebaggery is just as much of a leftist Dem characteristic as any other party
Even as somebody who is probably on the other side of the political spectrum as you, I basically agree. Where you go wrong is the term "leftist Dem". Just say "Dems". There are no "leftist" Dems, at least not in an economic sense, and in any prominent positions. In fact there have never been many "leftist" Dems, which is fine by me, but I do miss actual Democrats. They're a rarely sighted species ever since Billy Clinton's "third way". Corporate collusion is theoretically not a principle of either party, but in practice is a characteristic of both these days.
Which, seriously speaking, is a rather interesting point.
And one which many ideologues try very hard not to understand. "Free market" is more of a slogan than a clearly defined idea. I prefer the term "competitive market" to emphasize what's really important.
The F/A-18 Hornet was basically a scam. It could barely take off from a carrier before it had to be refueled. It was sold as a low-cost plane compared to the F-14, but by the time they produced a plane that could accomplish a mission, the Super Hornet, it cost almost as much as the F-14, and was still less capable. The first navy planes in Afghanistan were F-14's because even the Super Hornet didn't have the range. As for the dual-role (fighter/attack), in 1999 they changed a few hard points and upgraded the software to turn the F-14 into an attack plane. It performed superbly, even though it wasn't even originally designed for that role.
The real reason those two aircraft were so successful was that the government stayed out of Johnson's way
And the reason they stayed out of his way is because he had serious creds and chutzpah in dealing with the military. One of his standing rules was no more than two government representatives, including military officers, allowed on-site at any time.
I question how separate those organizations are when lots of retired military officers go to work for defense contractors. It's no secret in the defense industry that you want to hire them to sell your stuff, and that they rely on their insider knowledge and good buddy network. Larger outfits like to get a few generals, but the smaller outfit I contracted for settled for a colonel or two.
Congress isn't much different. The draft of Ike's speech used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, which I think is more accurate, but Ike chose to tone it down. Everybody in congress wants to bring home the pork in the form of defense contracts. Wonder why Boeing moved its headquarters from Washington State to Chicago? Maybe it didn't hurt that they moved to the then speaker-of-the-house's district. Defense contractors also openly try to use subcontractors in as many states as possible. I remember a newspaper add (for the B-1B?) which boasted that there were subcontractors in 48 states.
The US lost about 20% of its submariners in WWII. Given that not many survive the sinking of a sub, that's a fair proxy for the number of boats lost. I have no idea where the GP got a 90% figure from.
Submarines only claimed two of the five fleet carriers the United States lost during WW2...
OTOH US subs sank half of the total Japanese tonnage sunk in WWII, despite being handicapped for several years by terrible torpedoes. As for subs vs. carriers, you're talking about an era when submerged subs ran on batteries, and carriers ran on steam turbines. It's different when both run on nukes (though admittedly the sub is somewhat limited by higher noise at higher speed).
"Submarines and targets" is an old submariner's joke (or boast, I'm not sure). As always, it depends on whether you're at a point in the arms race where measure beats counter measure, or vice versa. Before 1943 the U-boats were making mincemeat of the allied convoys, then improved allied weapons and tactics turned it around. Maybe the tables would have turned again if, for example, more than two Type XXI's went into service, or if the Type XXVI had gone into service.
The F-14 was a great A/C. For the Navy. The F-15 is one of the best ever, but would be useless as a carrier based A/C.
OTOH the F-14 would've made a great plane for the air force.
The F-111 was a turkey because it was designed to play too many roles ("medium-range interdictor and tactical strike aircraft that also filled the roles of strategic bomber, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare") more than because it was designed for both USAF and USN. However it was designed without any real consideration of navy requirements (way too big and heavy). Did you know though that the excellent F-14 was built in large part from spare parts (radar, engines, etc.) from the turkey F-111 program?
It makes a lot more sense to first build a plane for the navy, and then have the air force adopt it. If a plane can take off and land on a carrier, then land based service is no problem. The F-4 though was such a good navy plane that the air force adopted it, and it worked well.
The Eurofighter is ok, but nothing really special. Here is a 3rd party assessment. It's maybe have as good as an F-22, and you could do as well as a Eurofighter with an avionics upgrade to the F-15. So the question isn't why the US suffers from NIH, but why Europe does.
neither of the offensive weapons you mention have successfully engaged a warship of any kind on the high seas
Nor has anybody tried to use them that way.
The truth is that we don't know how a carrier or it's battle group would fare against these weapons. History is full of offensive weapons that didn't work as planned, and likewise with defensive systems. No matter how many realistic weapons tests you perform, you don't know how these things will work in combat.
There USN hasn't been in a major battle in the almost 70 years since WWII. We just don't know what will happen.
The assumption that Facebook will decline in the medium term is challenged by the examples of other networks which became pervasive enough that they became effectively perpetual (at least until disrupted by outside forces). The telephone network, the Interstate highway system, and the power grid have all held on and show no signs of going away (even as the telephone network merges with the internet). Oh yeah: and the internet.
All the things that you mentioned other than Facebook are specific technologies, not specific companies. Maybe social networking will stay with us for milleniums, like malaria, but that doesn't mean Facebook will.
Slashdot Mirror
Not spherical, cylindrical, like an air hockey puck. With a decent size press we could create merchants in that shape, and, while frictionless is obviously unattainable, an air hockey table comes pretty close. Give me that and I'll believe in the ideal of a free market.
It doesn't just happen in communist societies, but also in over-regulated societies as well.
Then why not say "over-regulated", instead of smearing an approach you oppose with an association with communism?
I only mentioned communism because I see the US moving in that direction rapidly.
In the direction of communism, or the direction of over-regulation?
collusion and general douchebaggery is just as much of a leftist Dem characteristic as any other party
Even as somebody who is probably on the other side of the political spectrum as you, I basically agree. Where you go wrong is the term "leftist Dem". Just say "Dems". There are no "leftist" Dems, at least not in an economic sense, and in any prominent positions. In fact there have never been many "leftist" Dems, which is fine by me, but I do miss actual Democrats. They're a rarely sighted species ever since Billy Clinton's "third way". Corporate collusion is theoretically not a principle of either party, but in practice is a characteristic of both these days.
Which, seriously speaking, is a rather interesting point.
And one which many ideologues try very hard not to understand. "Free market" is more of a slogan than a clearly defined idea. I prefer the term "competitive market" to emphasize what's really important.
So said Adam Smith, but we all know "Smith" was just a pseudonym for Karl Marx.
In a communist government ...
OT. Who was talking about communism or anything approaching it?
that still doesn't explain why the US has enough military power right now to take on their allies as well as their enemies
Because you can never trust Canada.
The F/A-18 Hornet was basically a scam. It could barely take off from a carrier before it had to be refueled. It was sold as a low-cost plane compared to the F-14, but by the time they produced a plane that could accomplish a mission, the Super Hornet, it cost almost as much as the F-14, and was still less capable. The first navy planes in Afghanistan were F-14's because even the Super Hornet didn't have the range. As for the dual-role (fighter/attack), in 1999 they changed a few hard points and upgraded the software to turn the F-14 into an attack plane. It performed superbly, even though it wasn't even originally designed for that role.
The real reason those two aircraft were so successful was that the government stayed out of Johnson's way
And the reason they stayed out of his way is because he had serious creds and chutzpah in dealing with the military. One of his standing rules was no more than two government representatives, including military officers, allowed on-site at any time.
As foreseen by Star Trek: A Taste of Armageddon.
I question how separate those organizations are when lots of retired military officers go to work for defense contractors. It's no secret in the defense industry that you want to hire them to sell your stuff, and that they rely on their insider knowledge and good buddy network. Larger outfits like to get a few generals, but the smaller outfit I contracted for settled for a colonel or two.
Congress isn't much different. The draft of Ike's speech used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, which I think is more accurate, but Ike chose to tone it down. Everybody in congress wants to bring home the pork in the form of defense contracts. Wonder why Boeing moved its headquarters from Washington State to Chicago? Maybe it didn't hurt that they moved to the then speaker-of-the-house's district. Defense contractors also openly try to use subcontractors in as many states as possible. I remember a newspaper add (for the B-1B?) which boasted that there were subcontractors in 48 states.
The US lost about 20% of its submariners in WWII. Given that not many survive the sinking of a sub, that's a fair proxy for the number of boats lost. I have no idea where the GP got a 90% figure from.
Submarines only claimed two of the five fleet carriers the United States lost during WW2 ...
OTOH US subs sank half of the total Japanese tonnage sunk in WWII, despite being handicapped for several years by terrible torpedoes. As for subs vs. carriers, you're talking about an era when submerged subs ran on batteries, and carriers ran on steam turbines. It's different when both run on nukes (though admittedly the sub is somewhat limited by higher noise at higher speed).
"Submarines and targets" is an old submariner's joke (or boast, I'm not sure). As always, it depends on whether you're at a point in the arms race where measure beats counter measure, or vice versa. Before 1943 the U-boats were making mincemeat of the allied convoys, then improved allied weapons and tactics turned it around. Maybe the tables would have turned again if, for example, more than two Type XXI's went into service, or if the Type XXVI had gone into service.
Danish bacon? Bah. Stick to the stuff they do well: herring and butter cookies. Oh, and Danishes of course.
The F-14 was a great A/C. For the Navy. The F-15 is one of the best ever, but would be useless as a carrier based A/C.
OTOH the F-14 would've made a great plane for the air force.
The F-111 was a turkey because it was designed to play too many roles ("medium-range interdictor and tactical strike aircraft that also filled the roles of strategic bomber, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare") more than because it was designed for both USAF and USN. However it was designed without any real consideration of navy requirements (way too big and heavy). Did you know though that the excellent F-14 was built in large part from spare parts (radar, engines, etc.) from the turkey F-111 program?
It makes a lot more sense to first build a plane for the navy, and then have the air force adopt it. If a plane can take off and land on a carrier, then land based service is no problem. The F-4 though was such a good navy plane that the air force adopted it, and it worked well.
The specs are the same, and the Chinese one doesn't work.
The Eurofighter is ok, but nothing really special. Here is a 3rd party assessment. It's maybe have as good as an F-22, and you could do as well as a Eurofighter with an avionics upgrade to the F-15. So the question isn't why the US suffers from NIH, but why Europe does.
can anyone name a U.S. aircraft that was delivered ontime and at or below budget since the U2 or SR71?
What do those two planes have in common? They were both designed when Kelly Johnson ran the Skunk Works. Our biggest problem is that he retired.
failed on the back end with the 3rd party
Sounds like defense contracting.
less subcontracts / contracts things will work better as well less people in the mix who get kickbacks / no bid contracts
Does not sound like defense contracting.
neither of the offensive weapons you mention have successfully engaged a warship of any kind on the high seas
Nor has anybody tried to use them that way.
The truth is that we don't know how a carrier or it's battle group would fare against these weapons. History is full of offensive weapons that didn't work as planned, and likewise with defensive systems. No matter how many realistic weapons tests you perform, you don't know how these things will work in combat.
There USN hasn't been in a major battle in the almost 70 years since WWII. We just don't know what will happen.
Tell us when one gets hit.
Tell us when one gets attacked by a force with more than rudimentary abilities.
There are two kinds of naval vessels: submarines ... and targets.
Some of your arguments might be pertinent if Obama had even tried to curb these abuses, but he hasn't.
Maybe it doesn't make it right, but it does make you not care.
Life for many is moving from one social network to the another.
I have a social network that I've never abandoned - meeting people face to face (and this from someone who is often described as anti-social).
The assumption that Facebook will decline in the medium term is challenged by the examples of other networks which became pervasive enough that they became effectively perpetual (at least until disrupted by outside forces). The telephone network, the Interstate highway system, and the power grid have all held on and show no signs of going away (even as the telephone network merges with the internet). Oh yeah: and the internet.
All the things that you mentioned other than Facebook are specific technologies, not specific companies. Maybe social networking will stay with us for milleniums, like malaria, but that doesn't mean Facebook will.