You know Tesla isn't in this for the long haul, they don't have the range. Their batteries are dead all too soon. You see it's a chemistry problem, a weighty issue of inefficiency coupled with a departure from a stable power source. They don't use enough oil, but leach their energy from the outside and try to store enough to get by but they fail. Too soon they die, stop working and come to a stop, left in need of power from outside, occupants stranded to walk.
Fix that and they may yet survive, yet no fix appears, nothing comes to their rescue. They shall die, driven to death, energy depleted, left in want for more, but nothing on the way. The ride is over...
I'm sure the pentagon has thought about all this and where I'd be happier with a couple more F-22's in the inventory too, I'm pretty sure the 200 we have are sufficient to counter the perceived threats or the Air Force would be out soliciting bids on a replacement and not out spending billions on a long range bomber.
I'm pretty sure most folks don't understand just how out matched the F22 has made all other air superiority fighters. As a fighter, there is no equal, and few are even in the same league with the F22, much less on the same field. I've heard rumors that the F22, when competing with the best fighters we depended on previously (which where rarely bested in any category by any fighter in the world) the kill ratio was nearly infinite. It looked like the varsity team was out on the field with the grade school's second string with the F22 literally making TD's on every play it ran and holding the other team back for a loss on every defensive play. Maybe it was just propaganda, designed to make us feel good about the costs of the program and make our advisories cower in fear, but it's obvious to me the F22 is a huge leap in capability and will not soon be challenged in a meaningful way. 200 may be overkill at this point.
Again, it's too to is a common refrain of F35 critics. I'm not saying you are wrong in your analysis, only that the standard you are using is incorrect. You are judging the aircraft in comparison to other platforms which are less capable at many other things than the F35, yea there are platforms that can deliver more ordinance in one round trip, so? Can that platform do all the things the F35 airframe can? Is it as stealthy? Can it outperform the F35 at ACM and cost per flying hour too?
A Swiss Army knife has a horribly short blade, is terrible at opening cans, and driving flat or Phillips screws but it's still a useful tool to have in your pocket. It's not the best knife, not the best can opener and definitely not a good screw driver or hole punch, but it fits in my pocket and doesn't weight a ton.
Really? You want to relive history eh? Go back and remake all the choices you think brought us bad things? Good luck with that.
What's been happening in Iraq of late is the direct result of us not staying after we committed to the fight. It may or may not have been an mistake to go into Iraq and topple it's dictator, but there was at lest *some* justification for doing so, enough to get both the UN and Congress to approve the use of force. Once we where there, it was the leaving and toppling of Kaddafi that brought us ISIL to the forefront. In my view, the entry into Iraq may have been problematic, but it was reasonable at the time and NOBODY seriously opposed it on either side of the isle.
But while we are changing history, why don't we go back and change a couple of other things too. Let's go back to the end of the US Mexican war and not give Mexico their land back. Or, to the end of WW1 and not give Germany their country back... How about going back to the end of WW2 and, knowing what we know now, denying the Russians their final assault on Berlin and the division of Germany or returning Japan to the people who lived there? Just think of all the things we could reverse with the benefit of hindsight and do better...
Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Armed with what facts you can gather and what historical precedents you can find that might apply, you make the most reasonable choice you can and live with the consequences because none of us can foresee the future with anywhere near the clarity we think we can see the past.
They knew what they where getting and what the specifications for this aircraft where. They are getting what they paid for, just like the USA is getting what they paid for.
I'm not saying the F35 doesn't have it's issues, it surely does. It was a very aggressive project that faced grave difficulties because of the desire to make this beast a jack of all trades and useable for all branches of the service that flew fixed wing fighters. They where levying a lot of requirements on this airframe that drove the contractor to make compromises and drove costs up but we now have a solution that is "good enough" at a lot of things to be useful, even though it's not the best at any one thing.
It has stealth capability, though because it must carry heavy bomb loads on hard points for it's ground attack role, it's not as stealthy as it could be. It has Air to Air ability, but again because it's got to carry heavy weapons over long distances it had to be built with more structural strength which adds to weight and compromises it's ACM ability. Just about every one of the roles it is designed to do involve some kind of compromise in it's design or conflicts in some way with the other roles so compromises had to be struck and middle ground had to be found. But as a Swiss Army knife role, there is no platform better at the breadth of things it can do reasonably well enough to replace multiple older purpose built for one role platforms. At this, the F35 excels.
So it's not fair to compare the F35 to say the A-10's ability to deliver huge impacts to armor in one breath then complain that it's not stealthy enough or a good enough dogfighter, or complain that the F35 is not the best Air to Air platform in the sky when it wasn't supposed to be. Now if you want to complain that the F35 overran it's initial development cost estimates and that both the contractors and the DOD are responsible for the extra costs and delays, that's fair. But to say that the aircraft is no good because it doesn't do some specific task as well as what it replaces is not fair. The question should be "is it good enough" to do the job we need done within the specifications set forth in the contract.
Standing army? Yes, as long as they are not quartered in my home by force or used for law enforcement purposes it's constitutional to have a professional military force. Income taxes? Wasn't our founding father's idea, but since the ratification of the 16 amendment, it's constitutional as are tariffs and duties.
We do still have the 2 year funding limit, which means EVERY BIT of the defense budget must be re-approved by Congress every 24 months so unless congress wants the military to exist, it dies in 2 years or less, as the founders intended.
What we do now for defense appropriations is constitutional and how the money gets raised to pay for this is too.
And how many Billions have we spent on poverty during the same period? I dare say, at leas an order of magnitude more.
Dumping a little more money down the same rat holes we've been dumping it down for 5 decades won't fix the problem if it's not fixed it yet.
The "War on Poverty" started before I was born and during my lifetime we've spent a lot of money, borrowed money even on this problem yet the poor continue to be a problem. The reason this is true is not because we've not spent enough, but because we've addressed the symptoms of the problem with our spending and not the cause The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result and we have literally spent INSANE amounts of money on this problem and it's not going away, in fact the trends recently (like the last 8 years) have been in the WRONG direction. Please think a bit about what I'm saying... We don't need more money to fight poverty but a better strategy on how to address the problem at its source.
However, defense is indeed necessary spending. The world is an unstable place and the oceans that make up the bulk of the USA's borders and used to make us hard to attack is now only a minor inconvenience to our opponents in the world. Heck, even North Korea claims to have the ability to lob a nuclear warhead or two our way should it want to, and there is evidence that at least some of that bluster is true. Like it or not, we need a powerful and invincible military force, not just for our protection, but the rest of the world's protection. If that means we spend more than anybody else on our military, so be it.
We need a force that can deter North Korea from doing something stupid because they KNOW, without a doubt, they won't fight us to a draw on the ground but loose outright should they spark the Korean War back into a live shooting affair after seven decades of staring at each other over the DMZ. Or the Russians know they would come out the worst for wear should they decide to re-start the ground war in Europe, and China is prone to think twice about getting too aggressive near our allies in the south pacific. All this requires the best fighting force with the best equipment which is expensive to maintain. This is a matter of the nation's survival, rich, middle class and poor alike.
Historically, it's been a really bad idea to cut military spending as you suggest. Our cuts after WW1 got us our clocks cleaned during the start of WW2 and since then we have cycled between war and peace which was almost directly opposite our low and high spending levels, with low spending (and thus reduced military capacity) preceding the outbreak of active conflict. So YES, military spending protects us, young and old, rich and poor, from having to experience the affects of a war on our lives.
Just to clarify.... On the car loan.... I put 50% of the vehicle's price down and I will carry the loan only for about 8 months. Where I could have waited and avoided having to get the loan and paying the interest, we really needed the third vehicle in a household with 4 drivers and 2 cars.
My view on debt is two fold.. 1. Never go into debt that is unsecured, unless you are currently able to pay it off. (I.E. I use credit cards, but I pay the entire outstanding balance monthly, no student loans ect.) 2. For secured debt, never owe more than the asset is worth.
And one more thing... I seriously doubt that if we took 100% of the pentagon's budget and dump it down the rat hole of poverty it would make a darn bit of difference. How many billions of our debt comes from social welfare programs now? If you are honest with yourself and actually look at the numbers, national defense is a small fraction of what we spend on the things you think are more important. We've already spent billions in "The War on Poverty" in this country, yet it persists... Might it be that our efforts and spending are misplaced? I think so. Actually, I think that much of our spending makes the problem worse over the long term, but I wouldn't hope to argue that point with someone who's as misguided as to think what you do..
Please read what I said and let me refine what I mean..
The F35 is a capable A-A platform that compares to what the Navy currently has. It can hold it's own in most of the conceivable conflicts the Navy might be called on to provide air support for. Right now the primary Navy role is to provide air support in areas where the level of technology and sophistication of the adversary is limited. Under these conditions the F35 is fully capable to do the mission and these conditions cover the *bulk* of the world the Navy can reach from a carrier, with only a few exceptions (China and Russia).
So what does the Navy gain from the F35? Lots of stuff. First, it's ONE platform for multiple missions. That means you can field ONE airframe to do multiple missions so you will need less aircraft onboard to keep the same mission capability. You will also only need ONE set of spare parts to keep this one kind of airframe flying which will be lighter and take up less space. With one airframe, you will only need kind of support equipment, reducing space and weight onboard. You will need only ONE set of pilots to fly these aircraft and maintenance people become more interchangeable. The net result is lower cost, smaller size and less weight is required with the F35 on those already crowded and heavy carriers.
So the F35 is a boon for the Navy, not a bust. It may require more support from the Air Force's F22 than it's needed in the past in areas that would be contested by technically advanced forces, but where the Navy now operates, the F35 will provide more literal bang for the buck and be more mission ready than what they have now.
Ahw come on... The "Ready for Combat" is a contract milestone that was defined decades ago. The F-35 has reached a minimal level of functionality which was previously defined in the specifications and the contractor has managed to make the case that they have fulfilled the specifications to claim this milestone.
The F-35 will continue to develop new capabilities and features as time moves on. It's been a long bumpy road though development and has sucked up all the spare change from the couch cushions at the pentagon for nearly a decade, but it's not all bad. It flies and generally performs to a minimum set of specifications albeit at a later date than originally forecast. The program has been horribly run, but many weapon systems have gone though similar development cycles and emerged as great platforms. It's not yet time to give up on the F35.
Where I agree the F35 has been somewhat of a boondoggle, I don't agree that it's some lemon of an aircraft or that we really should just scrap it and head back to the drawing board. Plus, much of the critics points are based in a misunderstanding of the aircraft's designed role. Yea, it doesn't do Air to Air all that well, but it wasn't supposed to be the end all of ACM. It doesn't do what the A10 can though it's slated to replace it, nor can it do everything the F18 does as well, but it does a reasonably good job at BOTH these missions, in ONE airframe, ONE set of spares, ONE set of support equipment, ONE set of training for pilots and crews. It's not the best at anything, but it's good enough, and cheaper than having multiple weapon's systems. Which, if you are honest about it, was it's PRIMARY design goal and they've done a reasonably good job at meeting that objective.
National defense is a responsibility outlined in the constitution so it is a justifiable expense in line with our founding principles. Of all the things the Federal Government spends money on, this is the least of my concerns (and generally a very small part of the pie).
How's that related to the debt being amassed by the average citizen making bad financial choices? You can live debt free if you CHOOSE to. I currently have TWO loans, one on my house and one on my new truck (of which I own half) and ZERO other debt. I have a child in college and one who will be starting in a few years and the *plan* is to do it debt free for both. My wife does NOT work and I've not had a year where I've not reached my insurance's max out of pocket for medical expenses for over a decade. You CAN do this debt free, you just have to choose to.
How are the two related unless you somehow think the government is some how responsible for this? Are you one of those bleeding hearts who think the government OWES you something? That's how we got into this mess with huge deficit spending and a national debt that exceeds our yearly Gross Domestic Product. I tell you, we are on an economic trajectory that ends badly, with a lot of really bad consequences for everybody and a situation where the poor will pay the highest price in pain and death and the government won't be able to stop it, even if the elates who run it wanted too.
In situations where you are making split second decisions and have long round trip communications delays, you need a pilot..
In situations where jamming of communications and navigation signals is possible, yet the mission cannot be pre-planned because you don't have all the facts, you need a pilot.
In situations where you need stealth (and thus cannot turn on a RF transmitter) but need a human's input in tactical decision making on the fly because of the number of unknowns, you need a pilot.
In situations where the activities on the ground are continually in flux, yet you need pin point weapons delivery without delay, you need a pilot.
When malfunctions happen, but you need the mission to continue anyway, you need a pilot.
Drones are useful in some situations where the task at hand is long, boring and repetitive, but in combat, both A-A and A-G having a human in the aircraft is not ending any time soon.
We currently utilize drone for surveillance tasks, and they are great for that, they even fire a missile or two now and then but it's pretty difficult to do this with proper safeguards right now. However I do see an increase in drone assisted human directed combat applications. Where a drone is used in cooperation with a human controlled aircraft. Say like having an automated wingman in an AA encounter or a "follow me" weapons carrying platform on a short electronic leash that can rain death an destruction by the ton by following the leader and doing what it does.
I thought we were running articles about how the F35-A carries shit for weapons, turns like an aircraft carrier, can't dogfight, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year for decades only to turn out a worthless piece of shit after the trillions settled. Did Slashdot get bought recently?
The F-35 is NOT a dogfighter. It is not designed to do that role. The F-35 is supposed to be a economical delivery truck to rain death and destruction on ground forces and survive the round trip more often than not. The F-35 does have A to A capability, but it is NOT intended to be used as an air superiority fighter in areas where the adversary has modern fighters to field and United States Military doctrine (how you fight a war) would put the F-22 into the A to A role in the few places where the F-35 was out matched (which isn't that many places..)
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
The F-35 is not intended to be an air superiority fighter, it's intended to be a multi-role close air support (bomb delivery platform) that can hold it's own in an environment where control of the air may still be an open question. It is the role of the Air Force's F-22 to clear the skies of the opposition and engage them before they reach the F-35's area of operation. So, the F-35's A-A offensive capability is intended to keep it flying (i.e. so it can get away) and not so it can win a dogfight. It's primary purpose is to be an economical delivery truck, designed to deliver death and destruction on the enemy's ground forces and survive the round trip. For that role, it is well suited should it ever meet it's design specifications.
Except that your local wallet can also be lost, eaten by a virus or cleaned out by Bitcoin-savvy malware.
But your local wallet when off line and stuffed in your mattress is more secure than being on an exchange where it's grouped together with other hapless users' BitCoin to make a bigger target. In fact, as bad as stuffing money in a mattress is for both security and return on investment, BitCoin is worse. Why use them?
This is one of the PRIMARY reasons I do not recommend BitCoin for ANYTHING except quick online transactions for amounts you can afford to lose. It's just not safe compared to the other options available for moving funds around.
Oh I understand the meaning of "exchange" and why they are a necessary evil. But I am saying that you use said evil only as much and only when necessary. You are a fool if you keep any digital currency on deposit at one for extended periods of time where it is at risk. You are quite literally better off stuffing your BitCoin (or any other digital currency) in your mattress on USB thumb drives...
You see the problem here is that "exchanges" are NOT "banks" and you are letting somebody you don't know hold something of value for you, something that is easily stolen. When the exchange gets hacked, it's not their money they risk, but yours. So an exchange's security boils down to a business decision driven by profit in a situation where they have little more than a domain name and some used server hardware to lose.
Banks, on the other hand, have a requirement to pay you back, even if they lose securities to a robbery, it's literally not your money. Banks also are required to own significant assets compared to what their customers have on deposit and usually have insurance/government backing that means you get your money back even in the face of severe conditions for the bank. They are not 100% secure, nothing really is, but compared to a BitCoin exchange it's no contest.
YET ANOTHER exchange get's taken to the cleaners and looses scads of other folk's coin? Fools and their money are too soon parted.
For Pete's sake folks, DON'T keep your coin on deposit on some exchange, either buy something or convert it back into cash because *all* digital currency things are hacking magnets... And what do you think the hackers do with your coins when they steal them? Why they convert them to cash or buy something ASAP...
Would you keep your money in a bank if they kept getting robbed and YOU where the one who lost? Or if you kept gold coins in their vault and it kept getting broken into would you keep your coins there? No way. So why keep your BitCoin someplace where somebody else provides the security and YOU take the risk? Keep them on your own devices OFF LINE, until you need to use them.
You are just mad because you didn't think of it first.... OR you mommy won't let you out of the basement to chase virtual Pokie because she's afraid you will die crossing the street because you are too dense to look both ways first....
I know of two "Mom's basement" types who discovered the out of doors and seen lots of people walking around looking at their phones playing the game. So, at least for the first week, while it's still a fad the stereotype seems to be holding...
If "making an effort" means I used foil backed sheeting on my walls, a tin roof, metalized glass for windows and metal doors (all common building materials) because I wanted the energy efficiency and durability it affords me, how are you going to bring me up on charges even if my real reason is to block my customer's cell service while they are inside my place of business? You going to forbid the use of materials or structures that block cell service now?
What about the hapless electrical engineer who works in a shielded room, not because they want to keep RF out but need to keep it IN the room as is common when working on modern electronics? Is his employeer knowingly breaking the law now because they KNOW they are blocking RF signals and they are doing it on purpose even.
The law you describe is pretty much unenforceable if it really is intended to prevent passive disruption of RF based emergency services. Not to mention it's stupid to apply it to passive measures, done on purpose or not.
There is a reason the FCC doesn't address this kind of thing.. It's a fool hardy idea. As stupid as the FCC is sometimes even they realize that you cannot ever hope to enforce that kind of rule, so why bother having it?
Puts a Pokie Stop INSIDE the building and watches while the hapless Pokimon players drift in and realize there is a life outside their mom's basement.. The look on their faces is priceless.
Forget the grounding part, you don't need that. Just make sure the space between the wires is less than about a quarter wavelength all the way around and you have a faraday cage. Better yet, make the metal walls, floor and celing out of sheets of metal, not mesh, and it works great.
My dad had a steal lock box for the pager he had to wear on weekends when he was "on call" but didn't want to be. Worked like a charm. Drop the pager in the box on Friday when you get home and it would receive nothing as long as you left it in the box. He could claim he never got the page and the pager was turned on all weekend... Well, it worked until somebody gave out his home phone number.
Slashdot Mirror
This will produce a giant boost of Linux usage on the desktop.
THIS is the year!
Just kidding, OK? But we can dream..
See you later guys...
Android and Linux for me, thanks!
Dude, did you forget your lithium today?
You know Tesla isn't in this for the long haul, they don't have the range. Their batteries are dead all too soon. You see it's a chemistry problem, a weighty issue of inefficiency coupled with a departure from a stable power source. They don't use enough oil, but leach their energy from the outside and try to store enough to get by but they fail. Too soon they die, stop working and come to a stop, left in need of power from outside, occupants stranded to walk.
Fix that and they may yet survive, yet no fix appears, nothing comes to their rescue. They shall die, driven to death, energy depleted, left in want for more, but nothing on the way. The ride is over...
I'm sure the pentagon has thought about all this and where I'd be happier with a couple more F-22's in the inventory too, I'm pretty sure the 200 we have are sufficient to counter the perceived threats or the Air Force would be out soliciting bids on a replacement and not out spending billions on a long range bomber.
I'm pretty sure most folks don't understand just how out matched the F22 has made all other air superiority fighters. As a fighter, there is no equal, and few are even in the same league with the F22, much less on the same field. I've heard rumors that the F22, when competing with the best fighters we depended on previously (which where rarely bested in any category by any fighter in the world) the kill ratio was nearly infinite. It looked like the varsity team was out on the field with the grade school's second string with the F22 literally making TD's on every play it ran and holding the other team back for a loss on every defensive play. Maybe it was just propaganda, designed to make us feel good about the costs of the program and make our advisories cower in fear, but it's obvious to me the F22 is a huge leap in capability and will not soon be challenged in a meaningful way. 200 may be overkill at this point.
Again, it's too to is a common refrain of F35 critics. I'm not saying you are wrong in your analysis, only that the standard you are using is incorrect. You are judging the aircraft in comparison to other platforms which are less capable at many other things than the F35, yea there are platforms that can deliver more ordinance in one round trip, so? Can that platform do all the things the F35 airframe can? Is it as stealthy? Can it outperform the F35 at ACM and cost per flying hour too?
A Swiss Army knife has a horribly short blade, is terrible at opening cans, and driving flat or Phillips screws but it's still a useful tool to have in your pocket. It's not the best knife, not the best can opener and definitely not a good screw driver or hole punch, but it fits in my pocket and doesn't weight a ton.
Really? You want to relive history eh? Go back and remake all the choices you think brought us bad things? Good luck with that.
What's been happening in Iraq of late is the direct result of us not staying after we committed to the fight. It may or may not have been an mistake to go into Iraq and topple it's dictator, but there was at lest *some* justification for doing so, enough to get both the UN and Congress to approve the use of force. Once we where there, it was the leaving and toppling of Kaddafi that brought us ISIL to the forefront. In my view, the entry into Iraq may have been problematic, but it was reasonable at the time and NOBODY seriously opposed it on either side of the isle.
But while we are changing history, why don't we go back and change a couple of other things too. Let's go back to the end of the US Mexican war and not give Mexico their land back. Or, to the end of WW1 and not give Germany their country back... How about going back to the end of WW2 and, knowing what we know now, denying the Russians their final assault on Berlin and the division of Germany or returning Japan to the people who lived there? Just think of all the things we could reverse with the benefit of hindsight and do better...
Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Armed with what facts you can gather and what historical precedents you can find that might apply, you make the most reasonable choice you can and live with the consequences because none of us can foresee the future with anywhere near the clarity we think we can see the past.
They knew what they where getting and what the specifications for this aircraft where. They are getting what they paid for, just like the USA is getting what they paid for.
I'm not saying the F35 doesn't have it's issues, it surely does. It was a very aggressive project that faced grave difficulties because of the desire to make this beast a jack of all trades and useable for all branches of the service that flew fixed wing fighters. They where levying a lot of requirements on this airframe that drove the contractor to make compromises and drove costs up but we now have a solution that is "good enough" at a lot of things to be useful, even though it's not the best at any one thing.
It has stealth capability, though because it must carry heavy bomb loads on hard points for it's ground attack role, it's not as stealthy as it could be. It has Air to Air ability, but again because it's got to carry heavy weapons over long distances it had to be built with more structural strength which adds to weight and compromises it's ACM ability. Just about every one of the roles it is designed to do involve some kind of compromise in it's design or conflicts in some way with the other roles so compromises had to be struck and middle ground had to be found. But as a Swiss Army knife role, there is no platform better at the breadth of things it can do reasonably well enough to replace multiple older purpose built for one role platforms. At this, the F35 excels.
So it's not fair to compare the F35 to say the A-10's ability to deliver huge impacts to armor in one breath then complain that it's not stealthy enough or a good enough dogfighter, or complain that the F35 is not the best Air to Air platform in the sky when it wasn't supposed to be. Now if you want to complain that the F35 overran it's initial development cost estimates and that both the contractors and the DOD are responsible for the extra costs and delays, that's fair. But to say that the aircraft is no good because it doesn't do some specific task as well as what it replaces is not fair. The question should be "is it good enough" to do the job we need done within the specifications set forth in the contract.
Standing army? Yes, as long as they are not quartered in my home by force or used for law enforcement purposes it's constitutional to have a professional military force. Income taxes? Wasn't our founding father's idea, but since the ratification of the 16 amendment, it's constitutional as are tariffs and duties.
We do still have the 2 year funding limit, which means EVERY BIT of the defense budget must be re-approved by Congress every 24 months so unless congress wants the military to exist, it dies in 2 years or less, as the founders intended.
What we do now for defense appropriations is constitutional and how the money gets raised to pay for this is too.
And how many Billions have we spent on poverty during the same period? I dare say, at leas an order of magnitude more.
Dumping a little more money down the same rat holes we've been dumping it down for 5 decades won't fix the problem if it's not fixed it yet.
The "War on Poverty" started before I was born and during my lifetime we've spent a lot of money, borrowed money even on this problem yet the poor continue to be a problem. The reason this is true is not because we've not spent enough, but because we've addressed the symptoms of the problem with our spending and not the cause The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result and we have literally spent INSANE amounts of money on this problem and it's not going away, in fact the trends recently (like the last 8 years) have been in the WRONG direction. Please think a bit about what I'm saying... We don't need more money to fight poverty but a better strategy on how to address the problem at its source.
However, defense is indeed necessary spending. The world is an unstable place and the oceans that make up the bulk of the USA's borders and used to make us hard to attack is now only a minor inconvenience to our opponents in the world. Heck, even North Korea claims to have the ability to lob a nuclear warhead or two our way should it want to, and there is evidence that at least some of that bluster is true. Like it or not, we need a powerful and invincible military force, not just for our protection, but the rest of the world's protection. If that means we spend more than anybody else on our military, so be it.
We need a force that can deter North Korea from doing something stupid because they KNOW, without a doubt, they won't fight us to a draw on the ground but loose outright should they spark the Korean War back into a live shooting affair after seven decades of staring at each other over the DMZ. Or the Russians know they would come out the worst for wear should they decide to re-start the ground war in Europe, and China is prone to think twice about getting too aggressive near our allies in the south pacific. All this requires the best fighting force with the best equipment which is expensive to maintain. This is a matter of the nation's survival, rich, middle class and poor alike.
Historically, it's been a really bad idea to cut military spending as you suggest. Our cuts after WW1 got us our clocks cleaned during the start of WW2 and since then we have cycled between war and peace which was almost directly opposite our low and high spending levels, with low spending (and thus reduced military capacity) preceding the outbreak of active conflict. So YES, military spending protects us, young and old, rich and poor, from having to experience the affects of a war on our lives.
Just to clarify.... On the car loan.... I put 50% of the vehicle's price down and I will carry the loan only for about 8 months. Where I could have waited and avoided having to get the loan and paying the interest, we really needed the third vehicle in a household with 4 drivers and 2 cars.
My view on debt is two fold.. 1. Never go into debt that is unsecured, unless you are currently able to pay it off. (I.E. I use credit cards, but I pay the entire outstanding balance monthly, no student loans ect.) 2. For secured debt, never owe more than the asset is worth.
And one more thing... I seriously doubt that if we took 100% of the pentagon's budget and dump it down the rat hole of poverty it would make a darn bit of difference. How many billions of our debt comes from social welfare programs now? If you are honest with yourself and actually look at the numbers, national defense is a small fraction of what we spend on the things you think are more important. We've already spent billions in "The War on Poverty" in this country, yet it persists... Might it be that our efforts and spending are misplaced? I think so. Actually, I think that much of our spending makes the problem worse over the long term, but I wouldn't hope to argue that point with someone who's as misguided as to think what you do..
Please read what I said and let me refine what I mean..
The F35 is a capable A-A platform that compares to what the Navy currently has. It can hold it's own in most of the conceivable conflicts the Navy might be called on to provide air support for. Right now the primary Navy role is to provide air support in areas where the level of technology and sophistication of the adversary is limited. Under these conditions the F35 is fully capable to do the mission and these conditions cover the *bulk* of the world the Navy can reach from a carrier, with only a few exceptions (China and Russia).
So what does the Navy gain from the F35? Lots of stuff. First, it's ONE platform for multiple missions. That means you can field ONE airframe to do multiple missions so you will need less aircraft onboard to keep the same mission capability. You will also only need ONE set of spare parts to keep this one kind of airframe flying which will be lighter and take up less space. With one airframe, you will only need kind of support equipment, reducing space and weight onboard. You will need only ONE set of pilots to fly these aircraft and maintenance people become more interchangeable. The net result is lower cost, smaller size and less weight is required with the F35 on those already crowded and heavy carriers.
So the F35 is a boon for the Navy, not a bust. It may require more support from the Air Force's F22 than it's needed in the past in areas that would be contested by technically advanced forces, but where the Navy now operates, the F35 will provide more literal bang for the buck and be more mission ready than what they have now.
Ahw come on... The "Ready for Combat" is a contract milestone that was defined decades ago. The F-35 has reached a minimal level of functionality which was previously defined in the specifications and the contractor has managed to make the case that they have fulfilled the specifications to claim this milestone.
The F-35 will continue to develop new capabilities and features as time moves on. It's been a long bumpy road though development and has sucked up all the spare change from the couch cushions at the pentagon for nearly a decade, but it's not all bad. It flies and generally performs to a minimum set of specifications albeit at a later date than originally forecast. The program has been horribly run, but many weapon systems have gone though similar development cycles and emerged as great platforms. It's not yet time to give up on the F35.
Where I agree the F35 has been somewhat of a boondoggle, I don't agree that it's some lemon of an aircraft or that we really should just scrap it and head back to the drawing board. Plus, much of the critics points are based in a misunderstanding of the aircraft's designed role. Yea, it doesn't do Air to Air all that well, but it wasn't supposed to be the end all of ACM. It doesn't do what the A10 can though it's slated to replace it, nor can it do everything the F18 does as well, but it does a reasonably good job at BOTH these missions, in ONE airframe, ONE set of spares, ONE set of support equipment, ONE set of training for pilots and crews. It's not the best at anything, but it's good enough, and cheaper than having multiple weapon's systems. Which, if you are honest about it, was it's PRIMARY design goal and they've done a reasonably good job at meeting that objective.
National defense is a responsibility outlined in the constitution so it is a justifiable expense in line with our founding principles. Of all the things the Federal Government spends money on, this is the least of my concerns (and generally a very small part of the pie).
How's that related to the debt being amassed by the average citizen making bad financial choices? You can live debt free if you CHOOSE to. I currently have TWO loans, one on my house and one on my new truck (of which I own half) and ZERO other debt. I have a child in college and one who will be starting in a few years and the *plan* is to do it debt free for both. My wife does NOT work and I've not had a year where I've not reached my insurance's max out of pocket for medical expenses for over a decade. You CAN do this debt free, you just have to choose to.
How are the two related unless you somehow think the government is some how responsible for this? Are you one of those bleeding hearts who think the government OWES you something? That's how we got into this mess with huge deficit spending and a national debt that exceeds our yearly Gross Domestic Product. I tell you, we are on an economic trajectory that ends badly, with a lot of really bad consequences for everybody and a situation where the poor will pay the highest price in pain and death and the government won't be able to stop it, even if the elates who run it wanted too.
What plane needs a pilot anymore?
In situations where you are making split second decisions and have long round trip communications delays, you need a pilot..
In situations where jamming of communications and navigation signals is possible, yet the mission cannot be pre-planned because you don't have all the facts, you need a pilot.
In situations where you need stealth (and thus cannot turn on a RF transmitter) but need a human's input in tactical decision making on the fly because of the number of unknowns, you need a pilot.
In situations where the activities on the ground are continually in flux, yet you need pin point weapons delivery without delay, you need a pilot.
When malfunctions happen, but you need the mission to continue anyway, you need a pilot.
Drones are useful in some situations where the task at hand is long, boring and repetitive, but in combat, both A-A and A-G having a human in the aircraft is not ending any time soon.
We currently utilize drone for surveillance tasks, and they are great for that, they even fire a missile or two now and then but it's pretty difficult to do this with proper safeguards right now. However I do see an increase in drone assisted human directed combat applications. Where a drone is used in cooperation with a human controlled aircraft. Say like having an automated wingman in an AA encounter or a "follow me" weapons carrying platform on a short electronic leash that can rain death an destruction by the ton by following the leader and doing what it does.
I thought we were running articles about how the F35-A carries shit for weapons, turns like an aircraft carrier, can't dogfight, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year for decades only to turn out a worthless piece of shit after the trillions settled. Did Slashdot get bought recently?
The F-35 is NOT a dogfighter. It is not designed to do that role. The F-35 is supposed to be a economical delivery truck to rain death and destruction on ground forces and survive the round trip more often than not. The F-35 does have A to A capability, but it is NOT intended to be used as an air superiority fighter in areas where the adversary has modern fighters to field and United States Military doctrine (how you fight a war) would put the F-22 into the A to A role in the few places where the F-35 was out matched (which isn't that many places..)
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
The F-35 is not intended to be an air superiority fighter, it's intended to be a multi-role close air support (bomb delivery platform) that can hold it's own in an environment where control of the air may still be an open question. It is the role of the Air Force's F-22 to clear the skies of the opposition and engage them before they reach the F-35's area of operation. So, the F-35's A-A offensive capability is intended to keep it flying (i.e. so it can get away) and not so it can win a dogfight. It's primary purpose is to be an economical delivery truck, designed to deliver death and destruction on the enemy's ground forces and survive the round trip. For that role, it is well suited should it ever meet it's design specifications.
Except that your local wallet can also be lost, eaten by a virus or cleaned out by Bitcoin-savvy malware.
But your local wallet when off line and stuffed in your mattress is more secure than being on an exchange where it's grouped together with other hapless users' BitCoin to make a bigger target. In fact, as bad as stuffing money in a mattress is for both security and return on investment, BitCoin is worse. Why use them?
This is one of the PRIMARY reasons I do not recommend BitCoin for ANYTHING except quick online transactions for amounts you can afford to lose. It's just not safe compared to the other options available for moving funds around.
Oh I understand the meaning of "exchange" and why they are a necessary evil. But I am saying that you use said evil only as much and only when necessary. You are a fool if you keep any digital currency on deposit at one for extended periods of time where it is at risk. You are quite literally better off stuffing your BitCoin (or any other digital currency) in your mattress on USB thumb drives...
You see the problem here is that "exchanges" are NOT "banks" and you are letting somebody you don't know hold something of value for you, something that is easily stolen. When the exchange gets hacked, it's not their money they risk, but yours. So an exchange's security boils down to a business decision driven by profit in a situation where they have little more than a domain name and some used server hardware to lose.
Banks, on the other hand, have a requirement to pay you back, even if they lose securities to a robbery, it's literally not your money. Banks also are required to own significant assets compared to what their customers have on deposit and usually have insurance/government backing that means you get your money back even in the face of severe conditions for the bank. They are not 100% secure, nothing really is, but compared to a BitCoin exchange it's no contest.
YET ANOTHER exchange get's taken to the cleaners and looses scads of other folk's coin? Fools and their money are too soon parted.
For Pete's sake folks, DON'T keep your coin on deposit on some exchange, either buy something or convert it back into cash because *all* digital currency things are hacking magnets... And what do you think the hackers do with your coins when they steal them? Why they convert them to cash or buy something ASAP...
Would you keep your money in a bank if they kept getting robbed and YOU where the one who lost? Or if you kept gold coins in their vault and it kept getting broken into would you keep your coins there? No way. So why keep your BitCoin someplace where somebody else provides the security and YOU take the risk? Keep them on your own devices OFF LINE, until you need to use them.
Here are your winnings sir!
You are just mad because you didn't think of it first.... OR you mommy won't let you out of the basement to chase virtual Pokie because she's afraid you will die crossing the street because you are too dense to look both ways first....
I know of two "Mom's basement" types who discovered the out of doors and seen lots of people walking around looking at their phones playing the game. So, at least for the first week, while it's still a fad the stereotype seems to be holding...
If "making an effort" means I used foil backed sheeting on my walls, a tin roof, metalized glass for windows and metal doors (all common building materials) because I wanted the energy efficiency and durability it affords me, how are you going to bring me up on charges even if my real reason is to block my customer's cell service while they are inside my place of business? You going to forbid the use of materials or structures that block cell service now?
What about the hapless electrical engineer who works in a shielded room, not because they want to keep RF out but need to keep it IN the room as is common when working on modern electronics? Is his employeer knowingly breaking the law now because they KNOW they are blocking RF signals and they are doing it on purpose even.
The law you describe is pretty much unenforceable if it really is intended to prevent passive disruption of RF based emergency services. Not to mention it's stupid to apply it to passive measures, done on purpose or not.
There is a reason the FCC doesn't address this kind of thing.. It's a fool hardy idea. As stupid as the FCC is sometimes even they realize that you cannot ever hope to enforce that kind of rule, so why bother having it?
Puts a Pokie Stop INSIDE the building and watches while the hapless Pokimon players drift in and realize there is a life outside their mom's basement.. The look on their faces is priceless.
I'm guessing he did this not really knowing or expecting what the effect would be on cell phone use, then decided to use it as a marketing ploy...
Forget the grounding part, you don't need that. Just make sure the space between the wires is less than about a quarter wavelength all the way around and you have a faraday cage. Better yet, make the metal walls, floor and celing out of sheets of metal, not mesh, and it works great.
My dad had a steal lock box for the pager he had to wear on weekends when he was "on call" but didn't want to be. Worked like a charm. Drop the pager in the box on Friday when you get home and it would receive nothing as long as you left it in the box. He could claim he never got the page and the pager was turned on all weekend... Well, it worked until somebody gave out his home phone number.