Clinton was impeached for perjury - lying under oath while giving evidence to a court.
No Clinton was impeached to get back for Nixon being forced out. Almost 8 years, 80 billion dollars, and an investigation went from a land deal in the 70s to replacing patronage jobs in the whitehouse, to a blowjob. Yeah. Bang up job.
Meanwhile lying to congress and the american people about why we should engage in a war of aggression...
Up is down. Down is up. Questioning our glorious leader is double-plus ungood.
Funny that when the topic is the American industry and not technology, everyone refuses to adapt. Well, surprise! The economy and the industries of the world change, but Americans refuse to adapt. Instead, we'll see more anti-trade and anti-captitalist legislation such as tariffs or requirements for employing Americans citizens only. Not too different from anti-piracy legislation. What hipocracy!
You do realize that the USA does make money via exports too right? Holy crap moron. I bet if the world embargoed the USA you'd be flipping upset over it. Nice to see double standards so readily acceptable.
Holy crap moron! You don't have a fucking clue! Perhaps you've heard of a little something called the record $43.1 billion trade deficit! The problem isn't trade. It's the fact that the trade isn't fair. For intance the chinese yuan is pegged to the US dollar, causing it to be artifically deflated as much as 40%. Routinely other countries subsudise their own industries and apply tariffs to imports causing artifical prices differences. All of this happens on top of violating intellectual property laws.
I use turboprint for my Canon i850 and I think the cups-turboprint interface isn't that strong. It seems like whenever I go into cups I have to reinstall turboprint because cups forgets that I've got the paid version. Also cups and turboprint tend to display different settings like print resolution and and page size. It's very confusing so I end up setting everything twice whenever I print on 4x6 paper.
You forgot "You should be greatful for this piece of shit you dumbfuck!" and "Well code up a replacement you bellyacher!"
That show up alot on IRC and forums like/.. Someone will say "You know foo doesn't work well at all. It's broken because of this, this, and this." And then someone will get self-rightous and saying you're killing their buzz because they made an incredibly useless crap.
No. You just need to learn geography. Albania is not Kosovo. Albania was never part of Yugoslavia.
The article even says:
The accident happened on the day that the final six of 24 US. Army Apaches arrived in Albania for potential use over Kosovo. NATO requested the Apaches, armed with Hellfire armor-piercing missiles, a month ago to help stop the Yugoslav tanks and troops that have driven hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.
Anyway it's was a routine training accident. Sadly they happen all the time, with all the weapons in the military arsenal. Hardly a scathing indictment of the apache let alone attack helicopters.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
*BZZZRT* Oh I'm sorry. That's incorrect. Here have this loving parting gift of Rice-a-Roni "The San Francisco Treat".
In Kosovo, the army didn't use Apache helicopters. NATO only used fixed wing aircraft. That's it. Just attack jets. No men. No boats. Definatly no helicopters. Gen. Clark (SACEUR at the time) wanted to use helicopters since they were trying to taking out soviet era tanks and APCs, but the Clinton administration forbade him from ordering them into the theater, because Clinton wanted a casualtyless war (which he got). Instead the Apaches sat on the ground (so to speak) in Macedonia. I remember when this happened. You don't have to take my word for it though. Read Gen. Clark's book Waging Modern War.
As far as Iraq goes, we haven't lost that many (less than 20 I think). We've lost some attack helicopters almost everytime they've been used, but that's to be expected. They are low. They are slow compared to fixed wing aircraft. But to say that you don't need air support that can loiter is absurd. Attack helicopters tear through armored divisions. They do their job extremely well.
That said. 20 years and still having nothing is absurd.
This article just highlights that nothing really has changed in the Nautilus/Gnome world.
Development on how to take 31337 screenshots is given a priority, when screenshots are taken often, if at all. (I think I've taken 1 in the past three years, and that was done with xv's "grab window".) Screenshots simply aren't something worth spending time on.
Nautilus still sucks. Yea! It defaults to selecting everything before the extention! It STILL FOUR DAMN YEARS LATER doesn't support icon arranging. You either have them all messed up, or flush left in alphabetical order. What the hell? It still seems slow, and doesn't have decent plugins. I'm not a KDE guy, but Konqueror is heads and shoulders above Nautilus.
Nautilus sucks and needs to be replaced. Hopefully Velocity or Endeavour2 will mature enough to actually replace that dog.
Is that this situation is caused by FAX.COM breaking the law. Let me repeat that. FAX.COM is breaking the law.
[...]
To me it seems that this is the ideal application of sensible real-world law. Forbes sees it as an attack on a legitimate business. Bollocks.
No kidding. The laws and stiff fines ranging from $500 to $1,500--applied to each fax rather than the mass--make junk faxes a tempting target for plaintiffs' attorneys and similar ilk, who can file private civil actions independent of the FCC's own fines. Many practitioners offer step-by-step instructions on Internet sites, printable legal forms and names of attorneys who specialize in the trade.
No Forbes realizes it. They just think that it's perfectly fine to operate illegal enterprises just as long as they are profitable. (Income - Supplies - Salary - Fines and Legal = Profit!) Next month they feature an article on the harsh big government regulations driving out the the job creating small buisness of meth labs.
The last paragraph is more closely related to NetBSD (or all BSDs in general) problem. I read an article somewhere years ago that, Intel actually engaged a consulting firm in order to come out with a name for suitable for the 586. One of the criterias was that it must be something not offensive in any languages spoken worldwide.
Call it political correctness, but you don't offend anyone if you can help it. Especially a wo[r]ld class entity doing business worldwide.
You know people always defend creating bogus words bysaying that "we can't offend someone in another language". That's utter bullshit. Why?
China.
If you sell products in China, you must label them in Chinese. This is not simple transliteration because Chinese doesn't have a phonetic alphabet. Chinese uses ideograms. Each character represents both a phoneme and an idea (either concrete or abstract). This means that EVERY word including bullshit like "Pentium", "Levitra", and "xyzzy" means something. It may not make sense, but it does mean something.
For example, Subway resturants are called "si ba wei" which means something like "four thousand tastes". My girlfriend (who's from China) likes this name because it's actually clever. Most of time nonChinese names have questionable, if not outright meaningless names. (Think Lisa Simpson when she reads the movie marquee "Young Einstien Staring Yahoo Serious". ("I know these words, but that sign doesn't make any sense.")) Another example is "Johnson" (as in "Johnson's & Johnson's" is "qiang sheng" which means "strength birth". Still others end up meaning little more than "robot monkey carburator" or "Yahoo Serious".
I will never buy a Lego kit where I build the object depicted on the box.
Well you're never forced to build those things. It's just the stock set. I always built the suggested set, then after a few days I'd take it apart and then build something else. There's no deal.
1. Price - wow. Am I stunned when I see legos in the store now. Multiple hundreds of dollars. The most expensive kit I owned as a kid was 60 bucks for the lastest and bestest. Which leads me to...
Hate to break it to you, but Legos were always expensive. $60 was a huge chunk of change when you were younger. Hell $60 is still a lot to spend on a toy. While I personally don't remember thinking they were expensive (afterall I was 6 when I got my first set, the Beta I Command Base), but my mom sure does. She reminded me that legos were always expensive this past Chirstmas after I mentioned that I almost bought myself the $90 Mars Exploration Rover I received but I thought it was too much money.
3)Kill bionicles!!!! (what in the world are those things? are they LEGO at all? and they DO contain very few pieces and they're mostly custom!!!! They're model kits, not LEGO!)
I'll agree that they're not "legoish", but Lego isn't going to kill them. They're very popular. Custom parts only cost you if you're not reusing them. The bioncle parts are bionicle specific, but they're used extensively in the bionicle line. It's no different than a clutch gear or a differential.
Another example: next major internation sporting event, compare the relative representation of the various races in the finals of the 100m sprint. Now do it again in the swimming.
So here's a question you can't ask: why is it valid to segregate the 100m sprint into "male" and "female", but not into "african" and "chinese"? In one scenario, we are acknowleding that men tend to be physically stronger than women (even though you can find counterexamples), and in the other we are not.
I'll tell you why. There's no effective different difference in the skeletal/muscular systems between the races, but there is between the sexes.
Do you know why there's skewing in sports? It's for lots reasons. You don't see black downhill skiers because sking for two reasons. First you need snowy mountains. You don't have that in africa. Second, you need money. Skiing is expensive. For a variaty of sociological reasons blacks don't have as much money.
Same goes for swimming. Competative swimmers tend to have been competative swimmers since childhood. It costs money for swim coaches. Schools with swimteams tend to be in affluent areas. Blacks as a whole don't attend these schools.
This doesn't mean whites are more buoyant. It's for many more complex reasons. Anyone with highschool physiology should realize this.
It's not just poorly-supported fringe opinions or racist comments that are frowned upon in modern universities. It's ANYTHING that doesn't toe the line with the established orthodoxy. Supported non-racist opinions that are not orthodox WILL be denounced as unsupported or racist.
There's a reason why certain ideas are called "unsupported". That's because the data simply doesn't back them up. As someone with a techincal background I thought you'd understand that.
[C]asually mention anything that counters the current tenets of environmentalism. Dispute the data supported global warming. Or suggest that it isn't caused by human activity.
There's been 30+ years of data regarding global warming. CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. Way more than can be accounted for by volcanic processes, or , the "conservatives'" favorite, cow farts. This increase correlates with the increase of the average global temperature of 1 degree centigrade. (This increase also outpases any fluctuations prior to the CO2 increase.) Couple this with rapid deforestation, you create a situation where the heater is on, and the air conditioner is off.
CFCs do destroy the Ozone Layer. That's been proven experimentally. Since CFCs were banned, the Ozone hole has begun to shrink. Yes, it fluctuates year to year, but the overall trend is clear.
Or that electric cars cause as much pollution as gasoline cars.
Depending on how the electricity is generated, then perhaps yes. The polution produced from the production of electric cars may be in fact very different. For example it's well known that while solar cells do not create greenhouse gasses, solar cell production and decommissioning creates numerous pollutants. The question is: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
But first make sure you're wearing asbestos underwear! The creed of environmentalism CANNOT be questioned.
The reason is you're shouted down, is simple. The data isn't there. Sure you can find some guy to say that all the data is bogus, but that doesn't mean it is. I can find a flat earther today. I can find several people claiming that they have data proving that man and dinosaur walked hand in claw 6000 years ago. Anyone can make a theory, but if the data doesn't support it, it's bunk.
Scientists who dispute that HIV causes all AIDS illnesses (pointing out that HIV, if responsible, acts differently than any other virus known to man in about a dozen ways) and postulate other hypotheses - for instance, that drug usage, including the chemotherapy drugs like AZT used for AIDS treatment, causes the immunodeficiencies, are barred from conferences and their papers are blacklisted.
Those "scientists" are ignored because they discredited themselves. Yes, AIDS is nothing more than a collection of symptoms. That's why the 'S' is there. It's a syndrome. HIV destroys the immune system, which inturn allows the things that actually kill you (i.e. Kaposi's Sarcoma) to do so.
Blaming chemotherapy (which causes all sorts of problems) for AIDS simply isn't supported by the data. Same as saying taking AZT causes AIDS. The AZT "link" sounds like someone needs to brush up on the difference between correlation and causality.
Complaining that these scientists aren't listened to, is the same as complaining that Flat Earther papers aren't accepted into geography journals, or that Creation "Scientists" theories that the Earth was created in 6 days 8000 years ago aren't taught in school. There's a reason for that. Those theories aren't supported by the data.
And here I thought that maybe, just maybe,/. would be populated by people with critical thinking skills.
I guess the other big controversy I see is in women's roles in the military. We don't let women do things like crew submarines or fly combat jets in battle. Knowing next to nothing about the military, I can't argue with any degree of authority. But I know what my instincts say.
Quite the contrary. During the invasion of the Iraq, the US Air Force fielded women pilots during the combat sorties. Pilots like "Thumper". Not only did she drop JDAMs, her plane was struck by lightning damaging her threat warning system.
Second world used to be the Communist Bloc; probably not relevant any more (does Cuba need it's own world?)
Well there's North Korea, Mongolia, and China. Of course now the question is, is China still communist? I'd argue that it's moving from a communist dictatorship to a run-of-the-mill totalitarian regime.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton was impeached for perjury - lying under oath while giving evidence to a court.
No Clinton was impeached to get back for Nixon being forced out. Almost 8 years, 80 billion dollars, and an investigation went from a land deal in the 70s to replacing patronage jobs in the whitehouse, to a blowjob. Yeah. Bang up job.
Meanwhile lying to congress and the american people about why we should engage in a war of aggression...
Up is down. Down is up. Questioning our glorious leader is double-plus ungood.
Funny that when the topic is the American industry and not technology, everyone refuses to adapt. Well, surprise! The economy and the industries of the world change, but Americans refuse to adapt. Instead, we'll see more anti-trade and anti-captitalist legislation such as tariffs or requirements for employing Americans citizens only. Not too different from anti-piracy legislation. What hipocracy!
Do you honestly believe Canada is immune?
You do realize that the USA does make money via exports too right? Holy crap moron. I bet if the world embargoed the USA you'd be flipping upset over it. Nice to see double standards so readily acceptable.
Holy crap moron! You don't have a fucking clue!
Perhaps you've heard of a little something called the record $43.1 billion trade deficit! The problem isn't trade. It's the fact that the trade isn't fair. For intance the chinese yuan is pegged to the US dollar, causing it to be artifically deflated as much as 40%. Routinely other countries subsudise their own industries and apply tariffs to imports causing artifical prices differences. All of this happens on top of violating intellectual property laws.
CUPS and Turboprint works well
I use turboprint for my Canon i850 and I think the cups-turboprint interface isn't that strong. It seems like whenever I go into cups I have to reinstall turboprint because cups forgets that I've got the paid version. Also cups and turboprint tend to display different settings like print resolution and and page size. It's very confusing so I end up setting everything twice whenever I print on 4x6 paper.
You forgot "You should be greatful for this piece of shit you dumbfuck!" and "Well code up a replacement you bellyacher!"
/.. Someone will say "You know foo doesn't work well at all. It's broken because of this, this, and this." And then someone will get self-rightous and saying you're killing their buzz because they made an incredibly useless crap.
That show up alot on IRC and forums like
Details of the Apache crash in Albania
No. You just need to learn geography. Albania is not Kosovo. Albania was never part of Yugoslavia.
The article even says:
Anyway it's was a routine training accident. Sadly they happen all the time, with all the weapons in the military arsenal. Hardly a scathing indictment of the apache let alone attack helicopters.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
*BZZZRT* Oh I'm sorry. That's incorrect. Here have this loving parting gift of Rice-a-Roni "The San Francisco Treat".
In Kosovo, the army didn't use Apache helicopters. NATO only used fixed wing aircraft. That's it. Just attack jets. No men. No boats. Definatly no helicopters. Gen. Clark (SACEUR at the time) wanted to use helicopters since they were trying to taking out soviet era tanks and APCs, but the Clinton administration forbade him from ordering them into the theater, because Clinton wanted a casualtyless war (which he got). Instead the Apaches sat on the ground (so to speak) in Macedonia. I remember when this happened. You don't have to take my word for it though. Read Gen. Clark's book Waging Modern War.
As far as Iraq goes, we haven't lost that many (less than 20 I think). We've lost some attack helicopters almost everytime they've been used, but that's to be expected. They are low. They are slow compared to fixed wing aircraft. But to say that you don't need air support that can loiter is absurd. Attack helicopters tear through armored divisions. They do their job extremely well.
That said. 20 years and still having nothing is absurd.
DJ Fuckface puts on a record of someone else's music and calls himself a musician.
This article just highlights that nothing really has changed in the Nautilus/Gnome world.
Development on how to take 31337 screenshots is given a priority, when screenshots are taken often, if at all. (I think I've taken 1 in the past three years, and that was done with xv's "grab window".) Screenshots simply aren't something worth spending time on.
Nautilus still sucks. Yea! It defaults to selecting everything before the extention! It STILL FOUR DAMN YEARS LATER doesn't support icon arranging. You either have them all messed up, or flush left in alphabetical order. What the hell? It still seems slow, and doesn't have decent plugins. I'm not a KDE guy, but Konqueror is heads and shoulders above Nautilus.
Nautilus sucks and needs to be replaced. Hopefully Velocity or Endeavour2 will mature enough to actually replace that dog.
with the latency you'd never be able to game! ;-)
same goes with my only broadband option terrestrial satelite.
Spirit is on fucking Mars and I'm stuck here in the boondocks of Earth and I still only get 56k.
Damn it.
Let me repeat that.
FAX.COM is breaking the law.
[...]
To me it seems that this is the ideal application of sensible real-world law. Forbes sees it as an attack on a legitimate business. Bollocks.
No Forbes realizes it. They just think that it's perfectly fine to operate illegal enterprises just as long as they are profitable. (Income - Supplies - Salary - Fines and Legal = Profit!) Next month they feature an article on the harsh big government regulations driving out the the job creating small buisness of meth labs.
The last paragraph is more closely related to NetBSD (or all BSDs in general) problem. I read an article somewhere years ago that, Intel actually engaged a consulting firm in order to come out with a name for suitable for the 586. One of the criterias was that it must be something not offensive in any languages spoken worldwide.
Call it political correctness, but you don't offend anyone if you can help it. Especially a wo[r]ld class entity doing business worldwide.
You know people always defend creating bogus words bysaying that "we can't offend someone in another language". That's utter bullshit. Why?
China.
If you sell products in China, you must label them in Chinese. This is not simple transliteration because Chinese doesn't have a phonetic alphabet. Chinese uses ideograms. Each character represents both a phoneme and an idea (either concrete or abstract). This means that EVERY word including bullshit like "Pentium", "Levitra", and "xyzzy" means something. It may not make sense, but it does mean something.
For example, Subway resturants are called
"si ba wei" which means something like "four thousand tastes". My girlfriend (who's from China) likes this name because it's actually clever. Most of time nonChinese names have questionable, if not outright meaningless names. (Think Lisa Simpson when she reads the movie marquee "Young Einstien Staring Yahoo Serious". ("I know these words, but that sign doesn't make any sense.")) Another example is "Johnson" (as in "Johnson's & Johnson's" is "qiang sheng" which means "strength birth". Still others end up meaning little more than "robot monkey carburator" or "Yahoo Serious".
zhongwen.com has a faq about his very topic.
Though we all see your point, that there are people who think this way, I don't think that site represents them honestly.
Perhaps. But this one does.
I will never buy a Lego kit where I build the object depicted on the box.
Well you're never forced to build those things. It's just the stock set. I always built the suggested set, then after a few days I'd take it apart and then build something else. There's no deal.
1. Price - wow. Am I stunned when I see legos in the store now. Multiple hundreds of dollars. The most expensive kit I owned as a kid was 60 bucks for the lastest and bestest. Which leads me to...
Hate to break it to you, but Legos were always expensive. $60 was a huge chunk of change when you were younger. Hell $60 is still a lot to spend on a toy. While I personally don't remember thinking they were expensive (afterall I was 6 when I got my first set, the Beta I Command Base), but my mom sure does. She reminded me that legos were always expensive this past Chirstmas after I mentioned that I almost bought myself the $90 Mars Exploration Rover I received but I thought it was too much money.
3)Kill bionicles!!!! (what in the world are those things? are they LEGO at all? and they DO contain very few pieces and they're mostly custom!!!! They're model kits, not LEGO!)
I'll agree that they're not "legoish", but Lego isn't going to kill them. They're very popular. Custom parts only cost you if you're not reusing them. The bioncle parts are bionicle specific, but they're used extensively in the bionicle line. It's no different than a clutch gear or a differential.
I'd say the worst example is Spot Goes To Hollywood the game featuring the 7-Up icon...
I'l see that, and raise you "Yo! Noid!" starring the Dominoes Pizza Noid
What are the most appropriate and least appropriate advertising placements you've seen in games?
Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the idea of product placement being "appropriate"?
The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about public comments. In fact they despise all input from the "little guy". When they started getting too much negative email about the invasion, they made it so you had to jump through many hoops to send a comment, and then you could only comment on their "approved topics". Not only do they not want to listen to you, they won't tell you who they are listening to.
They're not conservatives. They're plutocrats.
Another example: next major internation sporting event, compare the relative representation of the various races in the finals of the 100m sprint. Now do it again in the swimming.
So here's a question you can't ask: why is it valid to segregate the 100m sprint into "male" and "female", but not into "african" and "chinese"? In one scenario, we are acknowleding that men tend to be physically stronger than women (even though you can find counterexamples), and in the other we are not.
I'll tell you why. There's no effective different difference in the skeletal/muscular systems between the races, but there is between the sexes.
Do you know why there's skewing in sports? It's for lots reasons. You don't see black downhill skiers because sking for two reasons. First you need snowy mountains. You don't have that in africa. Second, you need money. Skiing is expensive. For a variaty of sociological reasons blacks don't have as much money.
Same goes for swimming. Competative swimmers tend to have been competative swimmers since childhood. It costs money for swim coaches. Schools with swimteams tend to be in affluent areas. Blacks as a whole don't attend these schools.
This doesn't mean whites are more buoyant. It's for many more complex reasons. Anyone with highschool physiology should realize this.
It's not just poorly-supported fringe opinions or racist comments that are frowned upon in modern universities. It's ANYTHING that doesn't toe the line with the established orthodoxy. Supported non-racist opinions that are not orthodox WILL be denounced as unsupported or racist.
There's a reason why certain ideas are called "unsupported". That's because the data simply doesn't back them up. As someone with a techincal background I thought you'd understand that.
[C]asually mention anything that counters the current tenets of environmentalism. Dispute the data supported global warming. Or suggest that it isn't caused by human activity.
There's been 30+ years of data regarding global warming. CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. Way more than can be accounted for by volcanic processes, or , the "conservatives'" favorite, cow farts. This increase correlates with the increase of the average global temperature of 1 degree centigrade. (This increase also outpases any fluctuations prior to the CO2 increase.) Couple this with rapid deforestation, you create a situation where the heater is on, and the air conditioner is off.
CFCs do destroy the Ozone Layer. That's been proven experimentally. Since CFCs were banned, the Ozone hole has begun to shrink. Yes, it fluctuates year to year, but the overall trend is clear.
Or that electric cars cause as much pollution as gasoline cars.
Depending on how the electricity is generated, then perhaps yes. The polution produced from the production of electric cars may be in fact very different. For example it's well known that while solar cells do not create greenhouse gasses, solar cell production and decommissioning creates numerous pollutants. The question is: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
But first make sure you're wearing asbestos underwear! The creed of environmentalism CANNOT be questioned.
The reason is you're shouted down, is simple. The data isn't there. Sure you can find some guy to say that all the data is bogus, but that doesn't mean it is. I can find a flat earther today. I can find several people claiming that they have data proving that man and dinosaur walked hand in claw 6000 years ago. Anyone can make a theory, but if the data doesn't support it, it's bunk.
Scientists who dispute that HIV causes all AIDS illnesses (pointing out that HIV, if responsible, acts differently than any other virus known to man in about a dozen ways) and postulate other hypotheses - for instance, that drug usage, including the chemotherapy drugs like AZT used for AIDS treatment, causes the immunodeficiencies, are barred from conferences and their papers are blacklisted.
/. would be populated by people with critical thinking skills.
Those "scientists" are ignored because they discredited themselves. Yes, AIDS is nothing more than a collection of symptoms. That's why the 'S' is there. It's a syndrome. HIV destroys the immune system, which inturn allows the things that actually kill you (i.e. Kaposi's Sarcoma) to do so.
Blaming chemotherapy (which causes all sorts of problems) for AIDS simply isn't supported by the data. Same as saying taking AZT causes AIDS. The AZT "link" sounds like someone needs to brush up on the difference between correlation and causality.
Complaining that these scientists aren't listened to, is the same as complaining that Flat Earther papers aren't accepted into geography journals, or that Creation "Scientists" theories that the Earth was created in 6 days 8000 years ago aren't taught in school. There's a reason for that. Those theories aren't supported by the data.
And here I thought that maybe, just maybe,
I guess the other big controversy I see is in women's roles in the military. We don't let women do things like crew submarines or fly combat jets in battle. Knowing next to nothing about the military, I can't argue with any degree of authority. But I know what my instincts say.
Quite the contrary. During the invasion of the Iraq, the US Air Force fielded women pilots during the combat sorties. Pilots like "Thumper". Not only did she drop JDAMs, her plane was struck by lightning damaging her threat warning system.
Second world used to be the Communist Bloc; probably not relevant any more (does Cuba need it's own world?)
Well there's North Korea, Mongolia, and China. Of course now the question is, is China still communist? I'd argue that it's moving from a communist dictatorship to a run-of-the-mill totalitarian regime.