F-4 Phantom II - a joint service success
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Back in the 60s Robert McNamara pushed a "joint" fighter common to both Air Force and the Navy. Bean counter at heart, wanted to take advantages of economy of scale, synergy and the other buzzword bingo terms.
The F-111 may have failed but the F-4 Phantom II succeeded. Used by the US Air Force, Navy and Marines as their front line fighter. Entered service in 1960, still in use today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II
Re:Best comment in article:
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
"And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?" said McPeak, now chairman of Ethicspoint Inc., a consulting firm in Lake Oswego, Oregon.
This would be retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. A life-long Tactical Air Command officer and rated fighter pilot. The most heavily indoctrinated and most influential officer in air doctrine circles in the early '90s. And, in keeping with that background, having absolutely no use for "fast jets" for any service but the Air Force. And by Air Force, I mean exclusively the Tactical Air Command or its post-1992-replacement, Air Combat Command.
The Air Force Chief of Staff which oversaw the ultimate triumph of the TAC Mafia in gunning down Strategic Air Command.
Yaaaah. Yeah, he's an unbiased commentator.
To help those unfamiliar with Tactical Air Command, tactical is not necessarily used in the close air support sense. That is one role, but not what is considered the primary role, air superiority. Tactical is more in the sense: not the part of the AF that will attempt to fly to the Soviet Union and nuke it. To get a more realistic perspective on the Air Force leadership's concern regarding close air support look at the A-10. They didn't want it. It was forced upon them. They tried to get rid of it at the first opportunity. They were eager to give them to the Marines, the Navy intervened and said no. History then intervened in Iraq and forced the AF to keep the A-10 a bit longer.
The AF claimed they could use F-16s for close air support (CAS), despite the fact that F-16s are not as capable in this mission and are far more vulnerable. What made the F-16 superior in the role of CAS to the AF was that it could be also used in the real AF mission, air superiority. The A-10 could not be use in that role.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 2
We haven't even done a serious amphibious assault since WWII,...
A large amphibious Marine force was poised off of Kuwait/Iraq during the first gulf war. Saddam expected it to land and kept significant forces near the beach to oppose them. This lessened the forces the actual assault had to deal with. This amphibious force also constituted a major and mobile reserve force should the need suddenly arise if things did not go as planned elsewhere.
If you really were to face an opposed landing, wouldn't you want those carriers covering you?
The problem is that history shows the carriers do not necessarily loiter in the region after the landings. An amphibious assault ship is more likely to do so.
I don't see where having a VTOL-capable jet is going to make much difference compared to what you'd get if you just spent that money on Naval or Air Force gear.
To avoid some redundancy... The Air Force and Navy are not that interested, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968. And history shows that aircraft capable of operating from improvised airfields can be quite valuable, as the WW2 and Korean era aircraft demonstrated. Note that the Korean war is an example of something between an insurgent uprising and all out world war.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 2
Well, you can always stick Marine pilots in FA-18s or whatever, so the training in close air support isn't really a reason to buy a particular plane but just a matter of military politics.
Marines do fly FA-18s from carriers and ground bases, but not from the small assault ships.
Nobody is going to be fighting a campaign the size of the WWII pacific theater...
I am not suggesting such a war. What I am point out is that the Navy is willing to send Marines into an area they are *not* willing to send an aircraft carrier. Amphibious assault ships fill that gap.
... I suspect that if we care enough about territory that we're willing to lose a few thousand marines in a day in an opposed landing then chances are we'll have every carrier in the fleet backing them up.
Carriers left the immediate vicinity after the landing. But heavily fighting continued for quite some time.
Once you've landed in a modern war chances are those forces are going to stick around for a long time.
I don't see that as realistic. It seems quite probable that the Navy would once again remove a big expensive difficult to replace and few in number aircraft carrier from the immediate vicinity of a contested area.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The Air Force and Navy are not all that interested in close air support. You mention the A-10, the AF didn't want it and tried to get rid of it once they had it. To avoid a redundant post here see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
they could. but they would lose their budget.
having f15's, f18's and apaches.. it seems just matter of organizing them to work together.
The Air Force (leadership, not necessarily individual pilots) is not all that interested in close air support. As evidenced by their attempt to get rid of the A-10. The Navy is not always interested in putting a carrier in the vicinity of Marines. As evidenced by the Guadalcanal campaign. The Army is OK with this, it justifies their helicopters. The Marines have learned that their most reliably air support comes from their fellow Marines. This is partly due to an emphasis in training, AF and Navy pilots have other priorities, air superiority, fleet defense, etc. It is also due to background, Marine pilots *must* start their careers by becoming infantry platoon commanders first. They have a better understanding of what they are seeing on the ground and hearing from those on the ground.
Regarding better organization, that is the entire point of the amphibious assault ships. A single ship that is a complete package containing everything that a Marine ground force needs. Transport (ground and air), logistics, medical and air support.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Marines fly F-18s from carriers now.
My understanding is that Marines have always been rotated on and off of carriers to some degree and that Marines pilots have always been required to be carrier qualified, and their aircraft were always required to be carrier capable. The later being the reason the Marines were not allowed to take the A-10s from the Air Force when the AF wanted to get rid of them.
Marines have been flying CAS long before their was a Harrier so no they do not have to have them on the Assault ships.
And long ago includes WW2 and Korean era aircraft that could operate from improvised dirt strips. F/A-18s can not operate from such an area, AV-8B Harriers can. The AV-8B returned this capability to the Marines. OV-10 Broncos and such did not really fulfill this lost niche.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 2
Why not just have the Navy fill this niche? Why do the planes need to launch from a particular class of ship? Why do they need to land on improvised fields? Just what kind of war could having this particular plane help win that would otherwise be lost?
The reason the Marines have their own air is that Marine pilots are better specialized and trained for close air support of infantry. To become a pilot in the Marines you *must* first become an infantry platoon commander.
Historically Marines having aircraft near the infantry has been critical. Conventional jets like the F/A-18 can not operate from the crude dirt strips that the WW2 and Korean era aircraft could. Having VTOL like the Harrier returned such a capability to the Marines.
History also shows that the Navy is not always willing to put the full sized aircraft carriers in the vicinity of Marines. For example during the Guadalcanal campaign of WW2. The naval vessels in the immediate vicinity of Guadalcanal were generally surface ships; battleships, cruisers and destroyers engaging in old fashioned gunfights. Assault ships being specialized for delivery and support of Marines, not so much for fleet defense, would be more likely to be left in such an environment.
Having aircraft literally some very small number of minutes away can be critical. I believe the Marines demonstrated this during the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean war, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir. The airstrips used were sometimes recently constructed dirt strips. More recently: "On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya. They carried out air strikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011. Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by MV-22 Osprey." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV8B#United_States_Marine_Corps
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
"Mr. McPeak" was the AF Chief of Staff. I think he knows a little bit about aircraft.
However he would know little of the needs of Marine infantry. That's why Marines have their own pilots, pilots that *must* begin their careers are infantry platoon commanders.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The Marines are part of the US Navy. Can't they call in F/A 18s off a carrier?
The carriers may actually be Amphibious Assault Ships, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship, that only launch VTOL harriers and helicopters. These ships are a very specialized all-in-one package that can deliver and support Marines. They Navy is more inclined to send them closer to shore than the full sized carriers.
Note that history shows that the Navy is not always willing to put full sized carriers in the vicinity of the Marines. During WW2's Guadalcanal campaign the US carriers were pulled back after the Marines were landed and the naval battles around the island were often old fashioned gun fights between surface ships; battleships, cruisers and destroyers. One area off of Guadalcanal is named iron bottom sound due to all the ships that were sunk during the campaign. Its arguable that the Navy did the right thing removing the big carriers from that environment.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
I need a new Porche. Trust me, I'm in a much better place to see it in my driveway than you are...
Bad analogy. The Marine infantry who are so fond of the Harrier do not get to fly them.
VTOL used repeatedly in combat for decades
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
A lot of design compromises were made especially to give the Marine Corps the STOVL capability which, by the way, they’ve never used in combat
You were misinformed. VTOL Harriers have been used in combat.
Amphibious assault ships are a highly specialized self-contained "package" that contains everything that Marines need to deliver and support a ground force. Part of that force includes "fast movers" to provide close air support on a very rapid basis. Note that the US Marines and the British Royal Navy employ the same aircraft and the British have similarly sized carriers specialized for these type of aircraft. The concept was proven in the Falklands, Yugoslavia, the Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan and in the recent support of revolutionaries in Libya. One of many examples:
"On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya. They carried out air strikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011. Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by MV-22 Osprey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II#United_States_Marine_Corps
Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 2
And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand the Marines needed a replacement more than the other services. The Marine version should probably be the last to cut, not the first. They have a unique need for VSTOL. Amphibious assault ships fill a very important niche and history has shown having Marine aviation near Marine ground forces can be quite critical.
Need troops for combat ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
I think the recent trend also has a lot to do with the demand for troops for combat related assignments. The outsourcing of some support tasks makes uniformed personnel available for combat assignments. It might be similar to the various womens auxiliaries from WW2 where men were made available for combat. When overseas combat deployments decline we may see a reversal of the trend, perhaps MPs back at the gates, etc.
My favorite personal infringement was "use of XOR to draw a cursor"
To be fair the XOR cursor patent was filed in Jan 1978. Perhaps in 1977 when folks were working on this it was not quite so obvious as it is to us today. I'm just adding some context, I'm not saying it was necessarily patent worthy. I think we would need to know more about raster graphics used in TV, it may be more relevant than computer graphics.
"In the late 1970s and ’80s raster graphics, derived from television technology, became more common, though still limited to expensive graphics workstation computers." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491818/raster-graphics
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
Then I suppose that those were not true scientific settings then, were they?...
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.
... Also, science doesn't have holy books; I think you're mistaken.
You are moving the goal post, from *a* holy book to *their* holy book. Given that these scientists were hostile towards the book it is pretty clear it was not one of theirs.
The interpretations are what people use to claim that the Bible says that the earth is a globe. But it actually says that the earth is flat. When you understand that the Bible is composed of stories written between 2000 to 3500 years ago, you see that it does have a place in history and that the things it describes are based on the knowledge and culture of those who wrote it. The notion of a spherical earth wasn't accepted until the 3rd Century in Greece, over 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
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.
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion;
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.
Or were you just hoping to invoke Godwin's law with that comment?;-)
I thought it was relevant since you are from the United States.
I may be in the US but the conversation was about religion in general. Again, you change the goal posts.
Again, the point is that even though Christians have the same holy text in common, they have beliefs that contradict with one another...
Perhaps you missed the following in my first post of this thread: "Christianity has a wide range of opinions and only a very small minority are of the earth is 6,000 years old persuasion. Many are quite comfortable with the idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old."
Public high school STEM classes are nowhere near sufficient as far as preparing students for a university-level STEM courseload is concerned.
While I agree with that to a degree I also believe working harder in college than one did in high school can go a long way to overcoming that. I think a major variable not being considered is how to balance work and fun. I recall far more guys dropping/flunking out of college because they were partying too much than because they were hopelessly unprepared.
You left off UFOs... and by the way, that sounds like the history channel. The science channel is still pretty much science. At least for the channels coming from my cable provider.
Maybe if colleges understood that, going in, many students aren't really understanding what they're getting into.
Well they do some of that in the sense that there are generally placement tests that you must pass before starting advanced (well, college level) math and science classes and they offer remedial (high school level) classes to get students caught up. Colleges and universities are aware that some high schools are failing and that they are being forced to accommodate these ill prepared students.
What features and what's an example of a motherboard where there's a difference between what you get if you buy it as part of a packaged PC or as a separate part?
How about a shiny box that includes panels, cables, etc that are not needed in an mass market factory environment; a printed manual that shows you how to install the motherboard and do things like how to over clock or otherwise configure the timing of the CPU yourself. I believe these retail oriented motherboards also sometimes include more ports than a mass market factory motherboard. Again mass market factory motherboards are more cost oriented and the hobbyist market is more feature oriented.
Even *if* the retail and mass market factory motherboards were the same - which I believe is rarely true - the fact that they have a shiny retail box for hobbyists shows they ***are willing*** to have a separate SKU to keep track of and sell a retail oriented variation and deal with all the administrative overhead that requires.
Even *if* the retail and mass market factory motherboards were the same - which I believe is rarely true - even offering something as simple as a user oriented manual demonstrates the ***are willing*** to endure an additional cost to reach the hobbyist market. Note that a BIOS with a different configuration would be significantly less costly than a manual.
If they are willing to takes steps, including a manual and alternative BIOS, to support hobbyists overclockers surely they would support Linux users.
You wrote:-
"The larger point is that the system as shipped from the factory exceeded the user's needs. It is nearly a certainty that the system is viewed as an appliance to be used and not something to be tinkered with."
Actually, the larger point of this/. discussion is meant to be whether Linux will be locked out of PC's, not whether typical PC's exceeed typical user's needs. Scroll up to the title and see.
Well its a good thing that I responded to a specific post about a customer's behavior rather than to the summary.
What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?
Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.
You left out the part where we had to pay 30 cents a song for the privilege.
On the other hand - even now, Apple still supports the original DRMed files if you choose not to upgrade - so this case isn't really a good example of a company "changing its mind" a la PlaysForSure.
If you are a user of iCloud there is no charge for the upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the 60s Robert McNamara pushed a "joint" fighter common to both Air Force and the Navy. Bean counter at heart, wanted to take advantages of economy of scale, synergy and the other buzzword bingo terms.
The F-111 may have failed but the F-4 Phantom II succeeded. Used by the US Air Force, Navy and Marines as their front line fighter. Entered service in 1960, still in use today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II
"And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?" said McPeak, now chairman of Ethicspoint Inc., a consulting firm in Lake Oswego, Oregon.
This would be retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. A life-long Tactical Air Command officer and rated fighter pilot. The most heavily indoctrinated and most influential officer in air doctrine circles in the early '90s. And, in keeping with that background, having absolutely no use for "fast jets" for any service but the Air Force. And by Air Force, I mean exclusively the Tactical Air Command or its post-1992-replacement, Air Combat Command.
The Air Force Chief of Staff which oversaw the ultimate triumph of the TAC Mafia in gunning down Strategic Air Command.
Yaaaah. Yeah, he's an unbiased commentator.
To help those unfamiliar with Tactical Air Command, tactical is not necessarily used in the close air support sense. That is one role, but not what is considered the primary role, air superiority. Tactical is more in the sense: not the part of the AF that will attempt to fly to the Soviet Union and nuke it. To get a more realistic perspective on the Air Force leadership's concern regarding close air support look at the A-10. They didn't want it. It was forced upon them. They tried to get rid of it at the first opportunity. They were eager to give them to the Marines, the Navy intervened and said no. History then intervened in Iraq and forced the AF to keep the A-10 a bit longer.
The AF claimed they could use F-16s for close air support (CAS), despite the fact that F-16s are not as capable in this mission and are far more vulnerable. What made the F-16 superior in the role of CAS to the AF was that it could be also used in the real AF mission, air superiority. The A-10 could not be use in that role.
We haven't even done a serious amphibious assault since WWII, ...
A large amphibious Marine force was poised off of Kuwait/Iraq during the first gulf war. Saddam expected it to land and kept significant forces near the beach to oppose them. This lessened the forces the actual assault had to deal with. This amphibious force also constituted a major and mobile reserve force should the need suddenly arise if things did not go as planned elsewhere.
If you really were to face an opposed landing, wouldn't you want those carriers covering you?
The problem is that history shows the carriers do not necessarily loiter in the region after the landings. An amphibious assault ship is more likely to do so.
I don't see where having a VTOL-capable jet is going to make much difference compared to what you'd get if you just spent that money on Naval or Air Force gear.
To avoid some redundancy ... The Air Force and Navy are not that interested, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968. And history shows that aircraft capable of operating from improvised airfields can be quite valuable, as the WW2 and Korean era aircraft demonstrated. Note that the Korean war is an example of something between an insurgent uprising and all out world war.
Well, you can always stick Marine pilots in FA-18s or whatever, so the training in close air support isn't really a reason to buy a particular plane but just a matter of military politics.
Marines do fly FA-18s from carriers and ground bases, but not from the small assault ships.
Nobody is going to be fighting a campaign the size of the WWII pacific theater ...
I am not suggesting such a war. What I am point out is that the Navy is willing to send Marines into an area they are *not* willing to send an aircraft carrier. Amphibious assault ships fill that gap.
... I suspect that if we care enough about territory that we're willing to lose a few thousand marines in a day in an opposed landing then chances are we'll have every carrier in the fleet backing them up.
Carriers left the immediate vicinity after the landing. But heavily fighting continued for quite some time.
Once you've landed in a modern war chances are those forces are going to stick around for a long time.
I don't see that as realistic. It seems quite probable that the Navy would once again remove a big expensive difficult to replace and few in number aircraft carrier from the immediate vicinity of a contested area.
The Air Force and Navy are not all that interested in close air support. You mention the A-10, the AF didn't want it and tried to get rid of it once they had it. To avoid a redundant post here see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968
You are mistaken. The Air Force and Navy are not as willing nor as capable to provide the close air support role. To avoid a redundant post see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2513426&cid=37977968
they could. but they would lose their budget.
having f15's, f18's and apaches.. it seems just matter of organizing them to work together.
The Air Force (leadership, not necessarily individual pilots) is not all that interested in close air support. As evidenced by their attempt to get rid of the A-10. The Navy is not always interested in putting a carrier in the vicinity of Marines. As evidenced by the Guadalcanal campaign. The Army is OK with this, it justifies their helicopters. The Marines have learned that their most reliably air support comes from their fellow Marines. This is partly due to an emphasis in training, AF and Navy pilots have other priorities, air superiority, fleet defense, etc. It is also due to background, Marine pilots *must* start their careers by becoming infantry platoon commanders first. They have a better understanding of what they are seeing on the ground and hearing from those on the ground.
Regarding better organization, that is the entire point of the amphibious assault ships. A single ship that is a complete package containing everything that a Marine ground force needs. Transport (ground and air), logistics, medical and air support.
Marines fly F-18s from carriers now.
My understanding is that Marines have always been rotated on and off of carriers to some degree and that Marines pilots have always been required to be carrier qualified, and their aircraft were always required to be carrier capable. The later being the reason the Marines were not allowed to take the A-10s from the Air Force when the AF wanted to get rid of them.
Marines have been flying CAS long before their was a Harrier so no they do not have to have them on the Assault ships.
And long ago includes WW2 and Korean era aircraft that could operate from improvised dirt strips. F/A-18s can not operate from such an area, AV-8B Harriers can. The AV-8B returned this capability to the Marines. OV-10 Broncos and such did not really fulfill this lost niche.
Why not just have the Navy fill this niche? Why do the planes need to launch from a particular class of ship? Why do they need to land on improvised fields? Just what kind of war could having this particular plane help win that would otherwise be lost?
The reason the Marines have their own air is that Marine pilots are better specialized and trained for close air support of infantry. To become a pilot in the Marines you *must* first become an infantry platoon commander.
Historically Marines having aircraft near the infantry has been critical. Conventional jets like the F/A-18 can not operate from the crude dirt strips that the WW2 and Korean era aircraft could. Having VTOL like the Harrier returned such a capability to the Marines.
History also shows that the Navy is not always willing to put the full sized aircraft carriers in the vicinity of Marines. For example during the Guadalcanal campaign of WW2. The naval vessels in the immediate vicinity of Guadalcanal were generally surface ships; battleships, cruisers and destroyers engaging in old fashioned gunfights. Assault ships being specialized for delivery and support of Marines, not so much for fleet defense, would be more likely to be left in such an environment.
Having aircraft literally some very small number of minutes away can be critical. I believe the Marines demonstrated this during the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean war, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir. The airstrips used were sometimes recently constructed dirt strips. More recently: "On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya. They carried out air strikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011. Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by MV-22 Osprey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV8B#United_States_Marine_Corps
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
"Mr. McPeak" was the AF Chief of Staff. I think he knows a little bit about aircraft.
However he would know little of the needs of Marine infantry. That's why Marines have their own pilots, pilots that *must* begin their careers are infantry platoon commanders.
The Marines are part of the US Navy. Can't they call in F/A 18s off a carrier?
The carriers may actually be Amphibious Assault Ships, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship, that only launch VTOL harriers and helicopters. These ships are a very specialized all-in-one package that can deliver and support Marines. They Navy is more inclined to send them closer to shore than the full sized carriers.
Note that history shows that the Navy is not always willing to put full sized carriers in the vicinity of the Marines. During WW2's Guadalcanal campaign the US carriers were pulled back after the Marines were landed and the naval battles around the island were often old fashioned gun fights between surface ships; battleships, cruisers and destroyers. One area off of Guadalcanal is named iron bottom sound due to all the ships that were sunk during the campaign. Its arguable that the Navy did the right thing removing the big carriers from that environment.
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
I need a new Porche. Trust me, I'm in a much better place to see it in my driveway than you are...
Bad analogy. The Marine infantry who are so fond of the Harrier do not get to fly them.
A lot of design compromises were made especially to give the Marine Corps the STOVL capability which, by the way, they’ve never used in combat
You were misinformed. VTOL Harriers have been used in combat.
Amphibious assault ships are a highly specialized self-contained "package" that contains everything that Marines need to deliver and support a ground force. Part of that force includes "fast movers" to provide close air support on a very rapid basis. Note that the US Marines and the British Royal Navy employ the same aircraft and the British have similarly sized carriers specialized for these type of aircraft. The concept was proven in the Falklands, Yugoslavia, the Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan and in the recent support of revolutionaries in Libya. One of many examples:
"On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya. They carried out air strikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011. Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by MV-22 Osprey." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II#United_States_Marine_Corps
And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?
Marine infantry says that. Perhaps they have a better perspective than Mr. McPeak has from his desk in Oregon.
On the other hand the Marines needed a replacement more than the other services. The Marine version should probably be the last to cut, not the first. They have a unique need for VSTOL. Amphibious assault ships fill a very important niche and history has shown having Marine aviation near Marine ground forces can be quite critical.
I think the recent trend also has a lot to do with the demand for troops for combat related assignments. The outsourcing of some support tasks makes uniformed personnel available for combat assignments. It might be similar to the various womens auxiliaries from WW2 where men were made available for combat. When overseas combat deployments decline we may see a reversal of the trend, perhaps MPs back at the gates, etc.
My favorite personal infringement was "use of XOR to draw a cursor"
To be fair the XOR cursor patent was filed in Jan 1978. Perhaps in 1977 when folks were working on this it was not quite so obvious as it is to us today. I'm just adding some context, I'm not saying it was necessarily patent worthy. I think we would need to know more about raster graphics used in TV, it may be more relevant than computer graphics.
"In the late 1970s and ’80s raster graphics, derived from television technology, became more common, though still limited to expensive graphics workstation computers."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491818/raster-graphics
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
Then I suppose that those were not true scientific settings then, were they? ...
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.
... Also, science doesn't have holy books; I think you're mistaken.
You are moving the goal post, from *a* holy book to *their* holy book. Given that these scientists were hostile towards the book it is pretty clear it was not one of theirs.
The interpretations are what people use to claim that the Bible says that the earth is a globe. But it actually says that the earth is flat. When you understand that the Bible is composed of stories written between 2000 to 3500 years ago, you see that it does have a place in history and that the things it describes are based on the knowledge and culture of those who wrote it. The notion of a spherical earth wasn't accepted until the 3rd Century in Greece, over 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
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.
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion;
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.
;-)
Or were you just hoping to invoke Godwin's law with that comment?
I thought it was relevant since you are from the United States.
I may be in the US but the conversation was about religion in general. Again, you change the goal posts.
Again, the point is that even though Christians have the same holy text in common, they have beliefs that contradict with one another ...
Perhaps you missed the following in my first post of this thread: "Christianity has a wide range of opinions and only a very small minority are of the earth is 6,000 years old persuasion. Many are quite comfortable with the idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old."
You believe that scientif
Public high school STEM classes are nowhere near sufficient as far as preparing students for a university-level STEM courseload is concerned.
While I agree with that to a degree I also believe working harder in college than one did in high school can go a long way to overcoming that. I think a major variable not being considered is how to balance work and fun. I recall far more guys dropping/flunking out of college because they were partying too much than because they were hopelessly unprepared.
Crab fishing? Ice road trucking? Paranormal investigation?
You left off UFOs ... and by the way, that sounds like the history channel. The science channel is still pretty much science. At least for the channels coming from my cable provider.
Maybe if colleges understood that, going in, many students aren't really understanding what they're getting into.
Well they do some of that in the sense that there are generally placement tests that you must pass before starting advanced (well, college level) math and science classes and they offer remedial (high school level) classes to get students caught up. Colleges and universities are aware that some high schools are failing and that they are being forced to accommodate these ill prepared students.
What features and what's an example of a motherboard where there's a difference between what you get if you buy it as part of a packaged PC or as a separate part?
How about a shiny box that includes panels, cables, etc that are not needed in an mass market factory environment; a printed manual that shows you how to install the motherboard and do things like how to over clock or otherwise configure the timing of the CPU yourself. I believe these retail oriented motherboards also sometimes include more ports than a mass market factory motherboard. Again mass market factory motherboards are more cost oriented and the hobbyist market is more feature oriented.
Even *if* the retail and mass market factory motherboards were the same - which I believe is rarely true - the fact that they have a shiny retail box for hobbyists shows they ***are willing*** to have a separate SKU to keep track of and sell a retail oriented variation and deal with all the administrative overhead that requires.
Even *if* the retail and mass market factory motherboards were the same - which I believe is rarely true - even offering something as simple as a user oriented manual demonstrates the ***are willing*** to endure an additional cost to reach the hobbyist market. Note that a BIOS with a different configuration would be significantly less costly than a manual.
If they are willing to takes steps, including a manual and alternative BIOS, to support hobbyists overclockers surely they would support Linux users.
You wrote :-
"The larger point is that the system as shipped from the factory exceeded the user's needs. It is nearly a certainty that the system is viewed as an appliance to be used and not something to be tinkered with."
Actually, the larger point of this /. discussion is meant to be whether Linux will be locked out of PC's, not whether typical PC's exceeed typical user's needs. Scroll up to the title and see.
Well its a good thing that I responded to a specific post about a customer's behavior rather than to the summary.
BTW, I showed that the larger point of the summary is mostly hysteria here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2506468&cid=37930364
What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?
Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.
You left out the part where we had to pay 30 cents a song for the privilege.
On the other hand - even now, Apple still supports the original DRMed files if you choose not to upgrade - so this case isn't really a good example of a company "changing its mind" a la PlaysForSure.
If you are a user of iCloud there is no charge for the upgrade.
What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?
Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.