With the exception of the police, fire departments and schools you can propose reasonable metrics that can evaluate that. However with police, fire departments and schools it's actually extremely complicated assessing whether money is being well spent in most cases.
I disagree that schools are exceptions to the degree you suggest. When one pays more per student and has more administrative overhead than other nations, and then has test scores far far lower than these other nations, there is a strong suggestion that there is a problem somewhere other than funding. When private schools in the same nation demonstrate greater results with less spending then the notion that a problem exists outside of funding becomes even more probable. In such an environment I think it is entirely reasonable to say no to new spending until we have a better idea of why we are failing and where the money is going.
Sounds like that'll make it easy to tax my online books/music/software purchases *rolls eyes*
Internet sellers include those who are selling packaged goods, not digital goods, packaged goods that are the same things that the mentioned brick and mortar stores are also offering?
And citizens want police & fire departments, better schools, better public transportation, better water supplies, better sewers, better roads, better bridges, etc. What they dont want is to have to pay for any of it.
Wrong. What they don't want is a vast gulf between the amount of taxes collected and the quality of the services and infrastructure provided. For example spending more money per student and getting some of the lowest test scores. Its not that people are unwilling to fund education, its that money is obviously not the problem with education. Something else is broken and perhaps we should fix that first before evaluating what an appropriate level of spending would be.
Or if you prefer, a car analogy: They don't want to pay Cadillac prices and have a Chevy Aveo delivered.:-)
What an embarrassing thing to have to admit to your cell mates...
He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Stealing garbage." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance."
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
Was the grease stolen from Alice's restaurant, noting that Alice's Restaurant is not the actual name of the restaurant?
I've always wondered about the "we own all your code" thing.
Companies with such a policy generally have a mechanism for waivers as well. Myself and coworkers at various employers had no problems in this regard. There was an admonition not to work on the hobby all night and show up in the morning exhausted. The admonition was offered with a smile in a humorous manner but there was probably an element of seriousness in there.
I think a famous example of waivers may lie with Steve Wozniak and Apple. Supposedly Steve did some work at HP, management was not interested in it, Steve asked for a waiver and it was granted. That work wound up in the Apple II.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I got bit by auto correct/complete. "Blue Angels". Please forgive the other now obvious typos as well.:-)
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The Navy's air assets for supporting Marine infantry are to a large degree Marine aviators. The US Naval Academy and Naval ROTC produces both Sailors and Marines. The Navy's flight schools produce both Navy and Marine pilots, both are carrier qualified Naval Aviators. "Naval" is used in this title to expressly include Marines. The Navy flight demonstration team, the Blue Angers, often includes Marine pilots. Marine aircraft as nearly exclusively Navy aircraft with a different paint job. Procured by the Navy, logistics partly provided by the Navy. Navy aircraft carriers do not go to sea exclusively with Navy squadrons, a Marine squadron may deploy along side Navy squadrons.
The only real difference between Navy and Marine aviation is that on the Marine side the personnel are Marines. What does that mean? It means that the pilot is different because he had to become an infantry platoon commander before he could go to flight school, the mechanic is different because he had to become an infantry rifleman before he could go to avionics school, etc. Not some abbreviated familiarization course, the exact same schools, training and requirements as the guys walking around with the muddy boots. You literally have to prove yourself an infantryman before you can move on to aviation, or any other job in the Marines.
The respective scientific communities of their day thought the above were true scientific settings. One has to recognize that scientists are humans and are affected by various belief systems and social norms - thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, decades ago, today and most likely tomorrow as well.
Science is a process and a way of thinking. It is built based on observation, testing, and drawing conclusions based on a thorough examination of evidence. It's not based on belief systems. That would make it a religion.
Perhaps I was not clear, I am not claiming that science is a belief system. What I am pointing out is that humans, including those who are scientists, often have belief systems (both pro and con religion) and history shows that their belief systems can interfere with the scientific process. As shown when a hypothesis was rejected because it was authored by a priest, as was the case in the big bang theory. FWIW, the western tradition of the scientific process (observe, hypothesize, predict and test) was establish as a methodology with a large contribution coming from members of the clergy. This process is not incompatible with faith.
Actually the bible using the phraseology of a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago is a point I've often made. I've also already commented on scientists suggesting the earth was a sphere in classical era greece, 2nd century india, 17th century China, etc. That said, your citation does not demonstrate the Bible saying the earth is flat. That is an interpretation some men have made, often stretching the interpretation quite a bit. Starting from heaven above earth below, someone at a zenith, someone seeing all kingdoms from a height, the heavens spreading (sounds like cosmic inflation/expansion), the earth flattening (sounds like erosion), the earth is fixed (given the pace of continental drift an easily forgiven error), etc. Add to this that we are using a somewhat poetic english translation with know translation errors.
Again, you're not looking at my sources and are ignoring human history, making up claims instead. Do you have a credible citation for any of these claims?
The faulty examples of the bible saying that the earth is flat is coming from your sources.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by me "moving the goal posts". You seem to be throwing this term around to dismiss yourself from having to refute my claims:(
Reread previous posts. "You are moving the goal post, from *a* holy book to *their* holy book." and "I may be in the *US* but the conversation was about religion *in general*. Again, you change the goal posts." are pretty clear in their original contexts. "A" vs "their", "US" vs "global".
Seriously? The nazis justified atrocities in a darwinian and scientific setting, the soviets justified atrocities with scientific and political rationalization, the khmer rouge also did so with political rationalization. Each of these groups killed millions without religious justification, they all view religion as an enemy.
Seriously?! If anything the Nazis looked to the pagan era for their fundamental mythology. What christian imagery they incorporated was to accommodate the many Germans who had a christian faith. Their actual perspective of christianity was that it would be a useful system to co-opt and manipulate. Intimidation of clergy to introduce their interpretations and mythology was a stated goal, internally at least. That said they embraced science and introduced pseudo-science to an even larger degree... medicine, biology, psychology, archeology, etc.
I'm kind of disappointed that you believe that evolution and social darwinism are the same;
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Another way to reduce duplication may be to not force close air support upon the air force.
Would you argue that between maintaining two air fleets there aren't commonalities? (staff, maintenance, procurement, facilities, r&d, etc.?)
How much maintenance commonality is there between an AF squadron that operates F-15s and another AF squadron that operates A-10s?
I believe Marine procurement is done by the Navy. Marine squadrons are somewhat interchangeable with Navy squadrons (Marine squadrons are often deployed on carriers).
A little tangent. The F-35 is supposed to make some of the maintenance and procurement stuff less of an issue given the high degree of commonality. A friend's father was an aviation mechanic in the Marines during VietNam. He spent some time at DaNang, an airfield shared by the AF and Marines. He said having a common airframe, F-4 Phantom II, with the AF was very convenient. They often "stole" parts from the AF when they ran out.
What is the staff overhead when an air unit of one service has to coordinate with a ground unit of a different service? What operational inefficiencies are introduced due to this inter service coordination? My understanding is that a Marine division is somewhat permanently paired with a Marine air wing, and that battalions may be paired with squadrons. This creates are really tight and efficient force. Does this efficiency save lives?
I don't necessarily have answer to these questions. I'm just suggesting that the topic of efficiency can get quite complicated, and that there are both financial and human aspects. One things I do know is that Marine infantry is of the opinion that they have been better served by their own aviation units, that over reliance on other services has hurt them at times.
Now if the AF was forced to give more attention to close air support, would they pair AF wings/squadrons with Marine divisions/battalions? Integrate command and train at the same tempo and build a strong air ground team? If so have we lost some of that efficiency of having all "jets" under the AF, sort of replicated the current system? Well replicated with the exception of carrier operation. Marine FA-18s providing close air support may be operating from a carrier rather than from ground. The AF can't fulfill that requirement.
I have never heard of a cop letting a civilian ride in the passenger seat for any reason.
A family member coming to pick me up was involved in a traffic accident. A police officer was kind enough to pick me up and take me to the scene of the accident. No one was hurt so it was a low key thing. Being a geek I was interested in the computer installed in the police car, he showed me how to use it. I did get to ride in the back on the way home, the other family member got the front seat. I'm sure things vary from one department to another.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
We have two options. Force the Air Force and Navy to give more consideration to close air support. Or allow the Army and Marines to focus on close air support and let the AF and Navy focus on air superiority in the area (and deep strikes outside the area). I tend to favor the later, it seems a more natural division of effort. Cost and efficiency problems seems to be a matter of the redundancy in the current system.
I agree the the F-35B has problems. I am just not convinced that the most cost effective solution would be to start a new STOVL design (not that you are claiming we should do so). The costs already sunk into the F-35 are gone forever, I think the real question is how much will it cost to move forward. I am also reminded of the problems with the original VTOL AV-8A Harrier. Perhaps a good way to proceed is to slow down manufacturing and delivery so we only get a relatively small number of the initial version (AV-8A'ish) that will undoubtedly manifest various problems and ramp up production on a later version that works out various issues (AV-8B'ish).
Perhaps its getting overly technical but I'm not entirely sure its fair to say the F-35B (STOVL Harrier replacement) and the F-35C (conventional landing F-18 replacement) are the same airframe. I can see arguments either way. Perhaps in a literal airframe sense its true but given the difference on the inside I think a little relaxation of the term is warranted. I think the stealthy requirement is sort of forcing this approach.
All that said, I would be thrilled to see a modernized carrier variant of the A-10 developed for the Marines. Not every aircraft needs to be stealthy.
FWIW, the WW2 carriers were not absent from Guadalcanal because they had other demands in the theatre. They were in fact supporting Guadalcanal, just from a far greater distance than may have been optimal. They were too valuable to risk so they hand to stand off a bit. I don't think such considerations are absent today.
mob rule: noun.
Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.
Control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy
It is difficult to answer this question, as it doesn't seem to really coincide with any coherent argument for or against direct democracy. I guess we could explore the current system's approach to dealing with mob rule, ie. passing legislation against violence, intimidation and participation in criminal conspiracies. Perhaps you could explain exactly how you think direct democracy is more prone to mob rule than our current systems? Whats that? It was a rhetorical question designed to use irrelevant buzz words to incite fear and direct the debate towards emotional knee jerk reactions and away from rational discourse? Oh, sorry. My mistake.
Perhaps you should have done a little more research into the phrase. You seem to be erroneously fixated on one of various definitions. Clues: the phrases "a mass of people" and "the rule of passion over reason".
Ochlocracy (Greek: ÎÏÎÎÎÏαÏÎα or okhlokratÃa; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.
Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligocracy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Seems like the A-10 does a better job at close air support though.
However the Air Force leadership is more interested in air superiority, deep strikes at high value or strategic assets, etc. The A-10 can not be used in these roles, it is a highly specialized single role aircraft. Low, slow and close to the ground is not how the AF likes to fly. By arguing that the F-16 could perform the close air support role the AF leadership would end up with more aircraft that could perform these other roles, more planes that go fast. Greater casualties during close air support missions flown with F-16s were apparently a lesser consideration.
Note that the AF is not inherently against specialized single purpose aircraft, as long as it is for a role they prefer. Their dream project of that era was the F-15. A motto used during its design was supposedly "not a pound for air-to-ground."
Re:VTOL used repeatedly in combat for decades
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 2
You were misinformed. VTOL Harriers have been used in combat.
You can't read. He was referring to STOVL capability being used in combat. Meaning - were Harriers hovering while protecting downed pilot? (let me help you - the answer is 'no').
Guess again. The "TO" and "L" in those acronyms stand for take off and landing. I believe they are both important phases of a combat mission. The take off part is of particular importance. the vertical takeoff allows operations from improvised ground locations and ships far smaller and far closer to a target than full sized carriers. During the Falklands war the British even launched Harriers from modified merchant container ships. Taking off near the target saves time, saving time saves lives. I believe the Marines use the term "aggressive speed" with respect to using Harriers deployed on the ground with an expeditionary force.
VTOL also affects combat missions in that the mission can occur at all. The Harrier is able to fly in weather conditions that ground convention carrier based aircraft.
I don't see an "H" for hovering. My understanding is that the Harrier can only hover for a very brief period of time, and it pretty much needs that for TO and L. I think you are confusing movies like "True Lies" with reality. In reality I think Harrier pilots have used their vectored thrust nuzzles while in forward flight to perform some unexpected maneuvers.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
That's good, because I see many enemy tanks invading the US in the near future. OK, I know the Nat Guard is now going overseas, just sounds weird.
I get that. But the truth is that the guard has always been going overseas. As jets entered service after WW2 a lot of P-51 Mustangs went into the guard. During the Korea war some of these guard units were activated and sent to Korea for close air support, jets were too fast. The guard took a lot of casualties since fighters are also pretty vulnerable in this role. Something that had been shown in WW2 also. Yet the AF argued they didn't need the A-10, that F-16s would do just fine.
One method of addressing mob rule is to make legislation enacted as now, by representation. Make veto power and removal of laws a democratic function. All bills that make it through the house and the senate must be approved by a majority of the population. Any law can be brought before the public for review at any time. If it does not receive the majority it is removed from the books.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Don't they have A-10s for close air support?
The Air Force leadership never wanted the A-10. It was forced upon them. At the first opportunity to get rid of the A-10 the AF wanted to do so. The Marines were very interested but the Navy leadership said no, the A-10 was not designed to operate from aircraft carriers. So the A-10s went to the Air National Guard.
The things in the kit? Are they things truly envisioned, designed and developed via an open source process or are they heavily leveraging patents of previous eras that have expired. Would the kit be more accurately described as public domain?
How is the issue of mob rule addressed? I agree that our system in the US is not the most efficient, there are valid arguments that inefficiency and designed in different perspectives are there to provide a moderating effect. To create a little time for thought and debate.
None of the above should be interpreted to be support for the current dysfunctional behavior of the US Congress. I'm just questioning the wisdom of just going with whatever the majority thinks.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The Air Force and Navy are not as willing nor as capable to provide the close air support role.
No argument there or with your other post - but they ought to be able to fulfill this role. We're spending way too much, and duplication is a good place to go for efficiency.
Another way to reduce duplication may be to not force close air support upon the air force.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
They may well need appropriate air support. Surely that's the point of having an air force, though? Why does it have to be specifically marines supporting marines?
Very different skill sets and equipment are needed for close air support compared and air superiority. The Air Force views air superiority as their primary role, close air support is secondary. The Marines have a very different perspective. To avoid redundant posts see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968
Slashdot Mirror
With the exception of the police, fire departments and schools you can propose reasonable metrics that can evaluate that. However with police, fire departments and schools it's actually extremely complicated assessing whether money is being well spent in most cases.
I disagree that schools are exceptions to the degree you suggest. When one pays more per student and has more administrative overhead than other nations, and then has test scores far far lower than these other nations, there is a strong suggestion that there is a problem somewhere other than funding. When private schools in the same nation demonstrate greater results with less spending then the notion that a problem exists outside of funding becomes even more probable. In such an environment I think it is entirely reasonable to say no to new spending until we have a better idea of why we are failing and where the money is going.
Absent a program giving cash for grades/attendance. I know I would have done a lot better in school with a cash incentive.
Since when is there no cash incentive for doing better in school? ;-)
AFAIK Customs belongs to the feds, not the individual states.
No problem. The item sits in customs until the state OK's its release.
Sounds like that'll make it easy to tax my online books/music/software purchases *rolls eyes*
Internet sellers include those who are selling packaged goods, not digital goods, packaged goods that are the same things that the mentioned brick and mortar stores are also offering?
And citizens want police & fire departments, better schools, better public transportation, better water supplies, better sewers, better roads, better bridges, etc. What they dont want is to have to pay for any of it.
Wrong. What they don't want is a vast gulf between the amount of taxes collected and the quality of the services and infrastructure provided. For example spending more money per student and getting some of the lowest test scores. Its not that people are unwilling to fund education, its that money is obviously not the problem with education. Something else is broken and perhaps we should fix that first before evaluating what an appropriate level of spending would be.
:-)
Or if you prefer, a car analogy: They don't want to pay Cadillac prices and have a Chevy Aveo delivered.
I wonder how long until all of the big retailers are no longer in the US.
That would make taxation even simpler. Your package sits in customs until the use tax is paid.
What an embarrassing thing to have to admit to your cell mates...
He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Stealing garbage." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance."
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
Was the grease stolen from Alice's restaurant, noting that Alice's Restaurant is not the actual name of the restaurant?
I've always wondered about the "we own all your code" thing.
Companies with such a policy generally have a mechanism for waivers as well. Myself and coworkers at various employers had no problems in this regard. There was an admonition not to work on the hobby all night and show up in the morning exhausted. The admonition was offered with a smile in a humorous manner but there was probably an element of seriousness in there.
I think a famous example of waivers may lie with Steve Wozniak and Apple. Supposedly Steve did some work at HP, management was not interested in it, Steve asked for a waiver and it was granted. That work wound up in the Apple II.
Sorry, I got bit by auto correct/complete. "Blue Angels". Please forgive the other now obvious typos as well. :-)
The Navy's air assets for supporting Marine infantry are to a large degree Marine aviators. The US Naval Academy and Naval ROTC produces both Sailors and Marines. The Navy's flight schools produce both Navy and Marine pilots, both are carrier qualified Naval Aviators. "Naval" is used in this title to expressly include Marines. The Navy flight demonstration team, the Blue Angers, often includes Marine pilots. Marine aircraft as nearly exclusively Navy aircraft with a different paint job. Procured by the Navy, logistics partly provided by the Navy. Navy aircraft carriers do not go to sea exclusively with Navy squadrons, a Marine squadron may deploy along side Navy squadrons.
The only real difference between Navy and Marine aviation is that on the Marine side the personnel are Marines. What does that mean? It means that the pilot is different because he had to become an infantry platoon commander before he could go to flight school, the mechanic is different because he had to become an infantry rifleman before he could go to avionics school, etc. Not some abbreviated familiarization course, the exact same schools, training and requirements as the guys walking around with the muddy boots. You literally have to prove yourself an infantryman before you can move on to aviation, or any other job in the Marines.
The respective scientific communities of their day thought the above were true scientific settings. One has to recognize that scientists are humans and are affected by various belief systems and social norms - thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, decades ago, today and most likely tomorrow as well.
Science is a process and a way of thinking. It is built based on observation, testing, and drawing conclusions based on a thorough examination of evidence. It's not based on belief systems. That would make it a religion.
Perhaps I was not clear, I am not claiming that science is a belief system. What I am pointing out is that humans, including those who are scientists, often have belief systems (both pro and con religion) and history shows that their belief systems can interfere with the scientific process. As shown when a hypothesis was rejected because it was authored by a priest, as was the case in the big bang theory. FWIW, the western tradition of the scientific process (observe, hypothesize, predict and test) was establish as a methodology with a large contribution coming from members of the clergy. This process is not incompatible with faith.
Actually the bible using the phraseology of a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago is a point I've often made. I've also already commented on scientists suggesting the earth was a sphere in classical era greece, 2nd century india, 17th century China, etc. That said, your citation does not demonstrate the Bible saying the earth is flat. That is an interpretation some men have made, often stretching the interpretation quite a bit. Starting from heaven above earth below, someone at a zenith, someone seeing all kingdoms from a height, the heavens spreading (sounds like cosmic inflation/expansion), the earth flattening (sounds like erosion), the earth is fixed (given the pace of continental drift an easily forgiven error), etc. Add to this that we are using a somewhat poetic english translation with know translation errors.
Again, you're not looking at my sources and are ignoring human history, making up claims instead. Do you have a credible citation for any of these claims?
The faulty examples of the bible saying that the earth is flat is coming from your sources.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by me "moving the goal posts". You seem to be throwing this term around to dismiss yourself from having to refute my claims :(
Reread previous posts. "You are moving the goal post, from *a* holy book to *their* holy book." and "I may be in the *US* but the conversation was about religion *in general*. Again, you change the goal posts." are pretty clear in their original contexts. "A" vs "their", "US" vs "global".
Seriously? The nazis justified atrocities in a darwinian and scientific setting, the soviets justified atrocities with scientific and political rationalization, the khmer rouge also did so with political rationalization. Each of these groups killed millions without religious justification, they all view religion as an enemy.
It's commonly known that the Nazis followed Christ
Seriously?! If anything the Nazis looked to the pagan era for their fundamental mythology. What christian imagery they incorporated was to accommodate the many Germans who had a christian faith. Their actual perspective of christianity was that it would be a useful system to co-opt and manipulate. Intimidation of clergy to introduce their interpretations and mythology was a stated goal, internally at least. That said they embraced science and introduced pseudo-science to an even larger degree ... medicine, biology, psychology, archeology, etc.
I'm kind of disappointed that you believe that evolution and social darwinism are the same;
Another way to reduce duplication may be to not force close air support upon the air force.
Would you argue that between maintaining two air fleets there aren't commonalities? (staff, maintenance, procurement, facilities, r&d, etc.?)
How much maintenance commonality is there between an AF squadron that operates F-15s and another AF squadron that operates A-10s?
I believe Marine procurement is done by the Navy. Marine squadrons are somewhat interchangeable with Navy squadrons (Marine squadrons are often deployed on carriers).
A little tangent. The F-35 is supposed to make some of the maintenance and procurement stuff less of an issue given the high degree of commonality. A friend's father was an aviation mechanic in the Marines during VietNam. He spent some time at DaNang, an airfield shared by the AF and Marines. He said having a common airframe, F-4 Phantom II, with the AF was very convenient. They often "stole" parts from the AF when they ran out. What is the staff overhead when an air unit of one service has to coordinate with a ground unit of a different service? What operational inefficiencies are introduced due to this inter service coordination? My understanding is that a Marine division is somewhat permanently paired with a Marine air wing, and that battalions may be paired with squadrons. This creates are really tight and efficient force. Does this efficiency save lives?
I don't necessarily have answer to these questions. I'm just suggesting that the topic of efficiency can get quite complicated, and that there are both financial and human aspects. One things I do know is that Marine infantry is of the opinion that they have been better served by their own aviation units, that over reliance on other services has hurt them at times.
Now if the AF was forced to give more attention to close air support, would they pair AF wings/squadrons with Marine divisions/battalions? Integrate command and train at the same tempo and build a strong air ground team? If so have we lost some of that efficiency of having all "jets" under the AF, sort of replicated the current system? Well replicated with the exception of carrier operation. Marine FA-18s providing close air support may be operating from a carrier rather than from ground. The AF can't fulfill that requirement.
I have never heard of a cop letting a civilian ride in the passenger seat for any reason.
A family member coming to pick me up was involved in a traffic accident. A police officer was kind enough to pick me up and take me to the scene of the accident. No one was hurt so it was a low key thing. Being a geek I was interested in the computer installed in the police car, he showed me how to use it. I did get to ride in the back on the way home, the other family member got the front seat. I'm sure things vary from one department to another.
We have two options. Force the Air Force and Navy to give more consideration to close air support. Or allow the Army and Marines to focus on close air support and let the AF and Navy focus on air superiority in the area (and deep strikes outside the area). I tend to favor the later, it seems a more natural division of effort. Cost and efficiency problems seems to be a matter of the redundancy in the current system.
I agree the the F-35B has problems. I am just not convinced that the most cost effective solution would be to start a new STOVL design (not that you are claiming we should do so). The costs already sunk into the F-35 are gone forever, I think the real question is how much will it cost to move forward. I am also reminded of the problems with the original VTOL AV-8A Harrier. Perhaps a good way to proceed is to slow down manufacturing and delivery so we only get a relatively small number of the initial version (AV-8A'ish) that will undoubtedly manifest various problems and ramp up production on a later version that works out various issues (AV-8B'ish).
Perhaps its getting overly technical but I'm not entirely sure its fair to say the F-35B (STOVL Harrier replacement) and the F-35C (conventional landing F-18 replacement) are the same airframe. I can see arguments either way. Perhaps in a literal airframe sense its true but given the difference on the inside I think a little relaxation of the term is warranted. I think the stealthy requirement is sort of forcing this approach.
All that said, I would be thrilled to see a modernized carrier variant of the A-10 developed for the Marines. Not every aircraft needs to be stealthy.
FWIW, the WW2 carriers were not absent from Guadalcanal because they had other demands in the theatre. They were in fact supporting Guadalcanal, just from a far greater distance than may have been optimal. They were too valuable to risk so they hand to stand off a bit. I don't think such considerations are absent today.
How is the issue of mob rule addressed?
mob rule: noun.
Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation. Control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy
It is difficult to answer this question, as it doesn't seem to really coincide with any coherent argument for or against direct democracy. I guess we could explore the current system's approach to dealing with mob rule, ie. passing legislation against violence, intimidation and participation in criminal conspiracies. Perhaps you could explain exactly how you think direct democracy is more prone to mob rule than our current systems? Whats that? It was a rhetorical question designed to use irrelevant buzz words to incite fear and direct the debate towards emotional knee jerk reactions and away from rational discourse? Oh, sorry. My mistake.
Perhaps you should have done a little more research into the phrase. You seem to be erroneously fixated on one of various definitions. Clues: the phrases "a mass of people" and "the rule of passion over reason".
Ochlocracy (Greek: ÎÏÎÎÎÏαÏÎα or okhlokratÃa; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.
Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligocracy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
Seems like the A-10 does a better job at close air support though.
However the Air Force leadership is more interested in air superiority, deep strikes at high value or strategic assets, etc. The A-10 can not be used in these roles, it is a highly specialized single role aircraft. Low, slow and close to the ground is not how the AF likes to fly. By arguing that the F-16 could perform the close air support role the AF leadership would end up with more aircraft that could perform these other roles, more planes that go fast. Greater casualties during close air support missions flown with F-16s were apparently a lesser consideration.
Note that the AF is not inherently against specialized single purpose aircraft, as long as it is for a role they prefer. Their dream project of that era was the F-15. A motto used during its design was supposedly "not a pound for air-to-ground."
You were misinformed. VTOL Harriers have been used in combat.
You can't read. He was referring to STOVL capability being used in combat. Meaning - were Harriers hovering while protecting downed pilot? (let me help you - the answer is 'no').
Guess again. The "TO" and "L" in those acronyms stand for take off and landing. I believe they are both important phases of a combat mission. The take off part is of particular importance. the vertical takeoff allows operations from improvised ground locations and ships far smaller and far closer to a target than full sized carriers. During the Falklands war the British even launched Harriers from modified merchant container ships. Taking off near the target saves time, saving time saves lives. I believe the Marines use the term "aggressive speed" with respect to using Harriers deployed on the ground with an expeditionary force.
VTOL also affects combat missions in that the mission can occur at all. The Harrier is able to fly in weather conditions that ground convention carrier based aircraft.
I don't see an "H" for hovering. My understanding is that the Harrier can only hover for a very brief period of time, and it pretty much needs that for TO and L. I think you are confusing movies like "True Lies" with reality. In reality I think Harrier pilots have used their vectored thrust nuzzles while in forward flight to perform some unexpected maneuvers.
That's good, because I see many enemy tanks invading the US in the near future. OK, I know the Nat Guard is now going overseas, just sounds weird.
I get that. But the truth is that the guard has always been going overseas. As jets entered service after WW2 a lot of P-51 Mustangs went into the guard. During the Korea war some of these guard units were activated and sent to Korea for close air support, jets were too fast. The guard took a lot of casualties since fighters are also pretty vulnerable in this role. Something that had been shown in WW2 also. Yet the AF argued they didn't need the A-10, that F-16s would do just fine.
But with education and a general shift in attitude towards equality for all peoples ...
And there is the fatal flaw in the approach.
One method of addressing mob rule is to make legislation enacted as now, by representation. Make veto power and removal of laws a democratic function. All bills that make it through the house and the senate must be approved by a majority of the population. Any law can be brought before the public for review at any time. If it does not receive the majority it is removed from the books.
Given such a process I am not sure the voting rights act of 1965 would have survived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Don't they have A-10s for close air support?
The Air Force leadership never wanted the A-10. It was forced upon them. At the first opportunity to get rid of the A-10 the AF wanted to do so. The Marines were very interested but the Navy leadership said no, the A-10 was not designed to operate from aircraft carriers. So the A-10s went to the Air National Guard.
The things in the kit? Are they things truly envisioned, designed and developed via an open source process or are they heavily leveraging patents of previous eras that have expired. Would the kit be more accurately described as public domain?
How is the issue of mob rule addressed? I agree that our system in the US is not the most efficient, there are valid arguments that inefficiency and designed in different perspectives are there to provide a moderating effect. To create a little time for thought and debate.
None of the above should be interpreted to be support for the current dysfunctional behavior of the US Congress. I'm just questioning the wisdom of just going with whatever the majority thinks.
The Air Force and Navy are not as willing nor as capable to provide the close air support role.
No argument there or with your other post - but they ought to be able to fulfill this role. We're spending way too much, and duplication is a good place to go for efficiency.
Another way to reduce duplication may be to not force close air support upon the air force.
They may well need appropriate air support. Surely that's the point of having an air force, though? Why does it have to be specifically marines supporting marines?
Very different skill sets and equipment are needed for close air support compared and air superiority. The Air Force views air superiority as their primary role, close air support is secondary. The Marines have a very different perspective. To avoid redundant posts see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968