To my mind, it kind of depends on how far you want to extend that. I think that there are lots of fields of human endeavor that simply don't lend themselves to scientific analysis. (cf. much of psychology)
Human beings are not rational actors. The ruleset by which their reactions may be analyzed scientifically is really, really, really complicated.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying "there is more to understanding than rational thought".
No, that does NOT mean that evolution and creationism are equivalent.
By what metric? How do you know what "too much" is? Take off a couple un-funded wars and the Bush tax breaks, and the balance sheet looks pretty good.
"I don't see anything wrong with EVERYONE in the us that earns an income paying at least some tax"
Everyone does. Not everyone pays Federal income tax, but everyone in America pays tax. You have to be very wealthy indeed to get that burden below about 20% of your income.
There is onus on the student, for sure. There is also onus on the professor to do more than stand in front of the class and be older.
Re:Marine version tripped up the whole program
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The Air Force has A-10s. The Marines do not.
Re:Affordable replacement for something paid for
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Tooling recapitalization, how does that work?
Re:Affordable replacement for something paid for
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Do you know how airframe maintenance works? It's not a matter of spare parts bought and paid for in a warehouse.
I'm not saying that F-35 is a well-managed program, or even a successful design. (Time will tell, probably on both.) I will tell you, though, that maintenance costs on aging airframes, particularly on tactical aircraft, get scary big scary fast.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Since Lockheed's fighter plant is in Texas, you have to find another stalking horse. I know how disappointed you must be.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Could you point me to some sources for your assertion that Army and Navy actually manufactured aircraft? Which aircraft, which factories?
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Since the F-16 is a strike fighter too (and really a pretty good one) this is not as loony as you might want it to sound.
Orthodox Jews most certainly do believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, according to the Rabbi whose wife would ask me to come next door and turn lights on and off if she happened to be running behind preparing for the Sabbath.
ANA did not choose the Heavies. Boeing chose the Heavies before the first 787 was sold. Your statements are not true.
At no point did ANA place any engineering or manufacturing work anywhere.
It's true that Boeing makes industrial participation decisions based on the desire to sell airplanes to many different countries, but that's not the direction you're pointing the causality arrow.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the original converged device, and the ultimate refutation of people who think that converged devices can never work.
You first.
"ideologies of generations before the ones currently"
*snort* Which generations were those, exactly?
"statistically nearly no chance to fail"
Uh, throw enough users at it, and that means "It is guaranteed to fail regularly". Do it right or do something else.
"either you agree that it works, or you don't."
To my mind, it kind of depends on how far you want to extend that. I think that there are lots of fields of human endeavor that simply don't lend themselves to scientific analysis. (cf. much of psychology)
Human beings are not rational actors. The ruleset by which their reactions may be analyzed scientifically is really, really, really complicated.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying "there is more to understanding than rational thought".
No, that does NOT mean that evolution and creationism are equivalent.
"We all KNOW the Federal govt spends too much."
By what metric? How do you know what "too much" is? Take off a couple un-funded wars and the Bush tax breaks, and the balance sheet looks pretty good.
"I don't see anything wrong with EVERYONE in the us that earns an income paying at least some tax"
Everyone does. Not everyone pays Federal income tax, but everyone in America pays tax. You have to be very wealthy indeed to get that burden below about 20% of your income.
You might think it's absurd. You might also think the moon is made of cheese.
...so why pay tuition?
There is onus on the student, for sure. There is also onus on the professor to do more than stand in front of the class and be older.
The Air Force has A-10s. The Marines do not.
Tooling recapitalization, how does that work?
Do you know how airframe maintenance works? It's not a matter of spare parts bought and paid for in a warehouse.
I'm not saying that F-35 is a well-managed program, or even a successful design. (Time will tell, probably on both.) I will tell you, though, that maintenance costs on aging airframes, particularly on tactical aircraft, get scary big scary fast.
Since Lockheed's fighter plant is in Texas, you have to find another stalking horse. I know how disappointed you must be.
Could you point me to some sources for your assertion that Army and Navy actually manufactured aircraft? Which aircraft, which factories?
Since the F-16 is a strike fighter too (and really a pretty good one) this is not as loony as you might want it to sound.
Orthodox Jews most certainly do believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, according to the Rabbi whose wife would ask me to come next door and turn lights on and off if she happened to be running behind preparing for the Sabbath.
What's wrong with the Bible being a source of inspiration, not a source of historical knowledge?
I don't need it to be a 'stable basis' for anything...
How are you going to evacuate the plane if there are six people trying to hit the same six feet of aisle without braining each other?
You say whining, I say public discourse. If you want people to just sit down and shut up, I say go to hell.
747 or A380.
"Great countries were not made of people complaining"
When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independence?
This is false. You do not know what you are talking about.
ANA did not choose the Heavies. Boeing chose the Heavies before the first 787 was sold. Your statements are not true.
At no point did ANA place any engineering or manufacturing work anywhere.
It's true that Boeing makes industrial participation decisions based on the desire to sell airplanes to many different countries, but that's not the direction you're pointing the causality arrow.
You know there's no unpressurized cargo hold on modern airliners, right?
Do you need a hug?
So why aren't all the companies that do this as profitable as Apple?