Yes. I understood "Lawn Dart" referred to any single engine jet aircraft, including, but not exclusively, the F-16, i.e. if the engine dies, it becomes a "lawn dart."
I remember I was at my Officer Basic Course at Fort Sill in 1991. I was in my room one night watching cable tv and one of his shows came on, Captain Scarlet, maybe.
My first reaction was that it was incredibly juvenile and poor quality with the obvious puppet strings, etc. Of course, I had no idea who Anderson was and assumed that what I was watching was a current production. I did a little research and realized who he was and what I was seeing.
I realized just how amazing it is that so much creativity can be wrung out of a medium which has fairly severe inherent limitations, at least when compared to live actors or animation.
Yes, there have been problems with inexperienced pilots, especially in the regional airlines. There was a Frontline episode a year to two ago that addressed it. One of the crashes they focused on was Colgate Air 3407 crash in Buffalo, NY. If you haven't seen that episode, you really should.
This past Sunday on the weekly morning news shows, one of them discussed this. They had Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger as a guest. He says that the claims by the aviation industry of a shortage is incorrect. The rules did not just come out of nowhere, they are not arbitrary, and the industry has had years to prepare for it. It seems that he is a voice that is hard to ignore.
Just because it has to be displayed does not mean it has to be visible from public property or that people who want to know may trespass without consequence.
Meter readers are obviously an exception to the above as this would be a condition of service.
Why is the job of Apple customers to enforce tax law?
Exactly! It is not their job nor their responsibility to enforce tax law. There is so much flawed logic in this thread, it is becoming silly.
Example 1.
And yet, if everyone respect the spirit of the law instead of finding holes in the letter of it
Example 2.
The problem is, right now, the biggest and richest corporations and individuals can escape a large chunk of the tax that they are supposed to be paying
1. The law is about the words used to write it. That is how it is enforced, not through some notion of "spirit." 2. If they are supposed to be paying it and are not, they are breaking the law, and if so, they should be prosecuted accordingly. If they are not breaking the law, then they obviously do not have to pay it, based on how the corporation chooses to place or otherwise handle their assets.
If they are 'gaming" the system in some way, the fault is not the corporation but the government agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing the tax laws, the legislative bodies which created them, and ultimately, the voters who elected the members of those legislative bodies.
Small diesels are a much better alternative to gasoline / ethanol through the near future (10-20 years). VW, Jeep (diesel Liberty 2005-06), and others have shown this already.
They are well understood and have an existing fuel distribution infrastructure.
The first time I was deployed there 2007-08, we were all issued Doxycycline for malaria prevention. The only significant side effects that I noticed was increased sensitivity to the sun, sometimes a mild upset stomach, and the slight annoyance of having to remember to take it every day. OK, not a big deal, unless you spend almost all of your day outside in a hot, cloudless environment. Rats... Even though the uniform does a good job of protecting against sunburn and, whenever possible, I wore the sun hat (a.k.a. "boonie" hat) vice the patrol cap or helmet, I did get some sun burn. Even today, I can look at my hands and see where my sleeves stopped on my hands.
We were told that mefloquine was an available alternative and that the advantages included only having to take it once per week and it didn't increase sensitivity to sunlight. So, after about 8 months in theater, I asked to switch. A few months later, when I was getting to the end of my deployment, I noticed that I was having auditory hallucinations. I'm not talking about "hearing voices," but rather it was like I was hearing sounds differently. I would hear normal sounds to my peripheral and there would be an added intensity to it that would get my attention. It is not an easy thing to describe and I know that I'm not doing it very well. At times, I would find myself on edge. Not the "draw my weapon and turn toward the threat"-type of reaction, but rather an always on edge, always guarded reaction. Considering that we were immersed with the Aghan soldiers (speaking a different language with a different culture and considerably less educated) almost daily, it was already a stressful situation. We also knew that there were informants to the Taliban amongst the Afghan Army junior enlisted ranks. Adding a pharmaceutical factor to the mix only made it slightly more intense.
What really scared the crap out of me about it was that the change had been so slow and subtle that it had crept up on me over a period of time without me noticing it.
I immediately switched back to Doxycycline and within a couple of months the side effects were gone. The second time I was there (2010-2011), none of the medical professionals even mentioned mefloquine as an option. I took my Doxycycline and that was it.
I am not saying whether or not mefloquine was a factor in Bales actions. I am not a medical professional. I would say, based on my experience, that if he was taking mefloquine for an extended period of time, it could have been a factor.
> What exactly are we trying to force the Afghans to do?
We are not trying to -force- the Afghans to do anything. Fundamentally, we are doing two things:
1. Security. We (US military + NATO / ISAF military + other militarys) are trying to help them create a credible security force (Afghan police forces + Afghan military) so that they can secure their borders against Talilban, Al Quada, & other external threats as well as against internal threats (criminal), Taliban et al.
2. Governance. We (US government + European governments + other governments) are trying to help them create a legitimate government,
Part of why this is hard is that the first requires the second.
I am familiar with all of this because I have been there twice. The first time, I worked with an Afghan Army in a training / mentoring role.
I'm not sure why I am responding to something that has already been labeled as flamebait, other than to not let it go unchecked.
Yes, the Bush administration did consider Solyndra, but recommended / decided against it. It was the current administration (March 2009), which wanted to open the federal purse.
From wikipedia: "On 20 March 2009 the United States Department of Energy made a "conditional commitment" to a $535 million loan guarantee to support Solyndra's construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant for its proprietary solar photovoltaic panels.[10] The White House scheduled a press event for September 4 and federal reviewers gave final approval on September 2.[11] After securing the loan guarantee, the Federal Financing Bank, a part of the Department of the Treasury, loaned Solyndra $527 million.[12]"
rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened
OK. I've give you that. But if start with that as an assumption, then I think that you also have to accept that a 4 year old is NOT capable of understanding when teacher / other school official says (with dramatic license) "That lunch does not meet the appropriate nutritional guidelines. We are not replacing your lunch that you brought from home, but merely supplementing it in order to ensure you have the proper diet of a child of your age."
If a teacher / school official really believed the child's lunch was inadequate, was it absolutely essential that action be taken immediately / that day? Couldn't they have contacted the parent and expressed concern from adult to adult rather than from adult to 4 year old? Perhaps offered the parent the opportunity to supplement the kid's lunch through school-provided food?
I'm assuming these people at the school are themselves educated past the high school level, but perhaps I am wrong.
Given the description of what the kid brought from home, though, if I were the parent I would probably tell them to pound sand.
I have a hard time believing that we would fly a relatively slow, low-altitude aircraft into another country's airspace vice a very high-flying (and probably fast) manned or unmanned aircraft.
Consider what would have had to have been true for this to happen: 1. Not having a tested / validated method to ensure control of the UAV, even in the event of loss of control by the ground controller. 2. Not having a method to ensure authenticated / encrypted communication between the UAV and the ground controller. 3. No method of navigation other than GPS; no backup inertial-based system which is compared to the GPS data in order to validate the GPS-reported position. Inertial-based systems have been developed, tested, fielded, and proven well before the arrival of GPS. (Examples: cruise missile systems, civil airline industry.) 4. No method to destroy the UAV, either on command of the ground controller or automatic self-destruction in the event of loss of control by the ground controller for X period of time.
The idea that we would fly such a system, which is the cutting edge of so many technologies (stealth, avionics, sensors), into the airspace of a country who is hostile to us is so far beyond the pale that, absent evidence to the contrary, I just -cannot- believe it.
This only works if 1) the "they" is the whole world and 2) "they" don't do what you say they normally do, i.e. "spend the money faster than it comes in"
The election is a farce, as is the Afghan government, which relies on the support of a federation of armed tribal gangs.
Citation, please. The Afghan Army and Police are far from perfect, however, they exist and, especially the army, are doing good work and are getting better. The police are less mature as a organization and have more problems than the army. I've been there, seen it, lived it. I will be doing all of that again soon. Can you say that?
The national government is capable of controlling both the army and police and have on occasion, reeled them in from doing stupid stuff before they do it. Again, I've lived it, seen it.
There are a number of big problems in Afghanistan, including corruption. No argument there. Your last paragraph is not too far off the mark. The problem is that if every neighboring country sees a weak Afghanistan as being in their best interests.
and it will go on and on until the coalition is forced to withdraw and the terrorists will have achieved their aim of doing to the West what they did to the Soviets.
So, what is your answer? Bomb the crap out every 5 to 10 years like we (the rest of the world) have been doing?
One of the first actions of the occupying force was to disband the Iraqi army. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were told to go home.
Not quite. The Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. They simply went home.
The looting and destruction of both private and public property was tolerated and ignored by the occupying forces.
..and exactly what would you have had the US forces do and to what level of force would have had them use? There wasn't enough forces available to protect all of that property. Would you have had them use deadly force to protect this stuff? What kind of outrage do you think that would have provoked, both within the country, the region, and the world?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I understood "Lawn Dart" referred to any single engine jet aircraft, including, but not exclusively, the F-16, i.e. if the engine dies, it becomes a "lawn dart."
Since the Army does not own or operated fixed wing combat aircraft, that is the only portion which is based on fact.
here, here.
I would also add that the government should not be forcing (coercing) banks to make mortgages that are riskier than they would otherwise make.
"wrote memorization"
IT IS "ROTE," NOT "WROTE."
This is the second usage in this thread so far. Good grief.
If you are going to criticize the current education system, then use the correct terms.
I remember I was at my Officer Basic Course at Fort Sill in 1991. I was in my room one night watching cable tv and one of his shows came on, Captain Scarlet, maybe.
My first reaction was that it was incredibly juvenile and poor quality with the obvious puppet strings, etc. Of course, I had no idea who Anderson was and assumed that what I was watching was a current production. I did a little research and realized who he was and what I was seeing.
I realized just how amazing it is that so much creativity can be wrung out of a medium which has fairly severe inherent limitations, at least when compared to live actors or animation.
Yes, there have been problems with inexperienced pilots, especially in the regional airlines. There was a Frontline episode a year to two ago that addressed it. One of the crashes they focused on was Colgate Air 3407 crash in Buffalo, NY. If you haven't seen that episode, you really should.
This past Sunday on the weekly morning news shows, one of them discussed this. They had Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger as a guest. He says that the claims by the aviation industry of a shortage is incorrect. The rules did not just come out of nowhere, they are not arbitrary, and the industry has had years to prepare for it. It seems that he is a voice that is hard to ignore.
And certainly your idea of what is useful and what is not is the correct one and should be enforced by law, right?
Hey, dumbass. He never said anything that his opinion should become law.
He was expressing an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stop inferring for others what you want to hear (or read).
I think that this really be generalized to "when any employee leaves the company."
The issue of under whose choice the departure occurred is pretty minor.
Really? What kind of logic is that?
Just because it has to be displayed does not mean it has to be visible from public property or that people who want to know may trespass without consequence.
Meter readers are obviously an exception to the above as this would be a condition of service.
Why is the job of Apple customers to enforce tax law?
Exactly! It is not their job nor their responsibility to enforce tax law.
There is so much flawed logic in this thread, it is becoming silly.
Example 1.
And yet, if everyone respect the spirit of the law instead of finding holes in the letter of it
Example 2.
The problem is, right now, the biggest and richest corporations and individuals can escape a large chunk of the tax that they are supposed to be paying
1. The law is about the words used to write it. That is how it is enforced, not through some notion of "spirit."
2. If they are supposed to be paying it and are not, they are breaking the law, and if so, they should be prosecuted accordingly. If they are not breaking the law, then they obviously do not have to pay it, based on how the corporation chooses to place or otherwise handle their assets.
If they are 'gaming" the system in some way, the fault is not the corporation but the government agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing the tax laws, the legislative bodies which created them, and ultimately, the voters who elected the members of those legislative bodies.
The Supreme Court does not "convict."
They will either uphold or overturn a lower court's ruling.
I think I know what you meant to say, but words have meaning.
Here, here.
Small diesels are a much better alternative to gasoline / ethanol through the near future (10-20 years). VW, Jeep (diesel Liberty 2005-06), and others have shown this already.
They are well understood and have an existing fuel distribution infrastructure.
The first time I was deployed there 2007-08, we were all issued Doxycycline for malaria prevention. The only significant side effects that I noticed was increased sensitivity to the sun, sometimes a mild upset stomach, and the slight annoyance of having to remember to take it every day. OK, not a big deal, unless you spend almost all of your day outside in a hot, cloudless environment. Rats... Even though the uniform does a good job of protecting against sunburn and, whenever possible, I wore the sun hat (a.k.a. "boonie" hat) vice the patrol cap or helmet, I did get some sun burn. Even today, I can look at my hands and see where my sleeves stopped on my hands.
We were told that mefloquine was an available alternative and that the advantages included only having to take it once per week and it didn't increase sensitivity to sunlight. So, after about 8 months in theater, I asked to switch. A few months later, when I was getting to the end of my deployment, I noticed that I was having auditory hallucinations. I'm not talking about "hearing voices," but rather it was like I was hearing sounds differently. I would hear normal sounds to my peripheral and there would be an added intensity to it that would get my attention. It is not an easy thing to describe and I know that I'm not doing it very well. At times, I would find myself on edge. Not the "draw my weapon and turn toward the threat"-type of reaction, but rather an always on edge, always guarded reaction. Considering that we were immersed with the Aghan soldiers (speaking a different language with a different culture and considerably less educated) almost daily, it was already a stressful situation. We also knew that there were informants to the Taliban amongst the Afghan Army junior enlisted ranks. Adding a pharmaceutical factor to the mix only made it slightly more intense.
What really scared the crap out of me about it was that the change had been so slow and subtle that it had crept up on me over a period of time without me noticing it.
I immediately switched back to Doxycycline and within a couple of months the side effects were gone.
The second time I was there (2010-2011), none of the medical professionals even mentioned mefloquine as an option. I took my Doxycycline and that was it.
I am not saying whether or not mefloquine was a factor in Bales actions. I am not a medical professional. I would say, based on my experience, that if he was taking mefloquine for an extended period of time, it could have been a factor.
> What exactly are we trying to force the Afghans to do?
We are not trying to -force- the Afghans to do anything. Fundamentally, we are doing two things:
1. Security. We (US military + NATO / ISAF military + other militarys) are trying to help them create a credible security force (Afghan police forces + Afghan military) so that they can secure their borders against Talilban, Al Quada, & other external threats as well as against internal threats (criminal), Taliban et al.
2. Governance. We (US government + European governments + other governments) are trying to help them create a legitimate government,
Part of why this is hard is that the first requires the second.
I am familiar with all of this because I have been there twice. The first time, I worked with an Afghan Army in a training / mentoring role.
I'm not sure why I am responding to something that has already been labeled as flamebait, other than to not let it go unchecked.
Yes, the Bush administration did consider Solyndra, but recommended / decided against it. It was the current administration (March 2009), which wanted to open the federal purse.
From wikipedia:
"On 20 March 2009 the United States Department of Energy made a "conditional commitment" to a $535 million loan guarantee to support Solyndra's construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant for its proprietary solar photovoltaic panels.[10] The White House scheduled a press event for September 4 and federal reviewers gave final approval on September 2.[11] After securing the loan guarantee, the Federal Financing Bank, a part of the Department of the Treasury, loaned Solyndra $527 million.[12]"
rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened
OK. I've give you that.
But if start with that as an assumption, then I think that you also have to accept that a 4 year old is NOT capable of understanding when teacher / other school official says (with dramatic license) "That lunch does not meet the appropriate nutritional guidelines. We are not replacing your lunch that you brought from home, but merely supplementing it in order to ensure you have the proper diet of a child of your age."
If a teacher / school official really believed the child's lunch was inadequate, was it absolutely essential that action be taken immediately / that day?
Couldn't they have contacted the parent and expressed concern from adult to adult rather than from adult to 4 year old? Perhaps offered the parent the opportunity to supplement the kid's lunch through school-provided food?
I'm assuming these people at the school are themselves educated past the high school level, but perhaps I am wrong.
Given the description of what the kid brought from home, though, if I were the parent I would probably tell them to pound sand.
...since they refuse to comment on anything but always turn up red-handed
ALWAYS???
The US certainly has done some dumb things, some ignorant things, as well as some wonderful things in its history.
To make the claim that we "always turn up red-handed" is bullshit.
I have a hard time believing that we would fly a relatively slow, low-altitude aircraft into another country's airspace vice a very high-flying (and probably fast) manned or unmanned aircraft.
Consider what would have had to have been true for this to happen:
1. Not having a tested / validated method to ensure control of the UAV, even in the event of loss of control by the ground controller.
2. Not having a method to ensure authenticated / encrypted communication between the UAV and the ground controller.
3. No method of navigation other than GPS; no backup inertial-based system which is compared to the GPS data in order to validate the GPS-reported position. Inertial-based systems have been developed, tested, fielded, and proven well before the arrival of GPS. (Examples: cruise missile systems, civil airline industry.)
4. No method to destroy the UAV, either on command of the ground controller or automatic self-destruction in the event of loss of control by the ground controller for X period of time.
The idea that we would fly such a system, which is the cutting edge of so many technologies (stealth, avionics, sensors), into the airspace of a country who is hostile to us is so far beyond the pale that, absent evidence to the contrary, I just -cannot- believe it.
How is this insightful?
This only works if 1) the "they" is the whole world and 2) "they" don't do what you say they normally do, i.e. "spend the money faster than it comes in"
knock-knock
who's there?
landshark
ahh!!!!!
Well stated...
The election is a farce, as is the Afghan government, which relies on the support of a federation of armed tribal gangs.
Citation, please.
The Afghan Army and Police are far from perfect, however, they exist and, especially the army, are doing good work and are getting better. The police are less mature as a organization and have more problems than the army. I've been there, seen it, lived it. I will be doing all of that again soon. Can you say that?
The national government is capable of controlling both the army and police and have on occasion, reeled them in from doing stupid stuff before they do it. Again, I've lived it, seen it.
There are a number of big problems in Afghanistan, including corruption. No argument there. Your last paragraph is not too far off the mark. The problem is that if every neighboring country sees a weak Afghanistan as being in their best interests.
and it will go on and on until the coalition is forced to withdraw and the terrorists will have achieved their aim of doing to the West what they did to the Soviets.
So, what is your answer? Bomb the crap out every 5 to 10 years like we (the rest of the world) have been doing?
I never complained about foreigners engaging in combat.
Good job on deflecting the subject, though.
...and what if they are not citizens of that country? What if they are citizens from a third country and are engaging in combat?
One of the first actions of the occupying force was to disband the Iraqi army. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were told to go home.
Not quite. The Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. They simply went home.
The looting and destruction of both private and public property was tolerated and ignored by the occupying forces.