I live in Japan. Japan is a nightmare when it comes to cell phone selection and service provider flexibility. I run CyanogenMod on my Motorola Razr M. Partly because I HATE Softbank's bloatware. However, the cell radio and battery life have both been terribly unstable/buggy. The phone is on its last legs and I bought a used Sony Xperia Zx Compact to replace it...but I bought it from AliExpress so I need to flash it with a custom ROM so I can stick my Softbank SIM card in it. Why do I go through all this trouble? Because Softbank doesn't sell a physically small (screen
I'm sitting in Vietnam right now after a week in Thailand. I carry a Chinese phone (Doogee X5 Pro) with a stock ROM that supports 2 SIM cards. All I have to do for 4G data + cellphone is grab a $10-15 SIM card in the airport. Which takes about 5 minutes. Sometimes I really love the free-wheeling nature of developing economies.
California preferred Clinton. Clinton's overall vote gap was, what, 3 million votes over Trump? But her vote gap in California was 4 million votes. So judging by just the OTHER 49 States Clinton lost the popular vote. Why should the rest of the country be held captive by the far left political preferences of just one state?
There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
^This. I only have an anecdotal data point: I've spent a few days in Hong Kong and was amazed at how common the Model S is there. Residents there don't need to drive far, enjoy not having to pay for fuel, but definitely want something further up-market than a typical hybrid like a Prius so they can park next to their friend's/coworker's German luxo-barge without being embarrassed. The city is flush with money, so in an environment where basically price is no object it was nice to see so many people had chosen an American-made status symbol.
And if the drone became completely disoriented, it would be programmed to land safely and broadcast its location to its handlers.
Get (or observe) a few drone deliveries and do some SIGINT collection with an RTL-SDR to ID the freq range and strength of the drone's transmissions.
Once you do have a method to force a landing (which doesn't seem easy, BTW), broadcast with a cheap-ish SDR (probably a HackRF or the new LimeSDR) and a power amplifier to jam the drone's distress call.
Steal the drone and its cargo. Disable the drone's comms and sell on the black market.
What sort of stuff are they delivering with drones anyway? Gaming laptops? Gaming consoles? Either are pretty high value targets and easy to flip on the black/grey market, I would think...
Honestly, though, Trump has a lot of camera time talking about wanting his hot daughter's sexy body. We elected a pedophile who knows nothing about economics and wants to bang his daughter.
Nitpick: pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. Given that Trump's daughter Ivanka is a sexually-mature adult, she doesn't qualify. A more correct description of Trump would be incestuous .
Firstly....If they are going to assert porn = human trafficking, I wanna see some reliable evidence.
Secondly, if the objective is to "protect children"....will instructions for adults to remove the filters be included? If so, pretty much negates the point.
Thirdly, is the South Carolina market even large enough for most device manufacturers to justify this cost?
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
He's not referring to Iraqi army weapons that were captured in Iraq. He's referring to weapons that our government has stated it has supplied to Syrian rebels. Rebels which then either sold the weapons to jihadis, or were absorbed into larger jihadi organizations.
www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/ : "CIA-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official told CNN."
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120802
As soon as I saw "Tizen" in the headline, the article you linked is the first thing that came to my mind. I once had a passing interesting in Tizen development but resources/information/community help for developers is scant. Google searching will eventually lead you to the linked article and turn anyone sensible off of Tizen, IMO. These days, I'm trying to do everything with C++ (my most familiar language, but I'm not a programmer by trade), Qt, and Python.
he has already backed Russian interference in the democratic process that is the foundation of the US
Are you equally critical of the Obama administration's interference in the internal politics of Ukraine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Putin will attack the US unless he is killed or overthrown first
Please describe the Operational Plan/Scheme of Maneuver that you anticipate for Putin's attack on the US. Cyber attack? Strategic bombers? Nuclear weapons?If you are going to make such an accusation, you must foresee some "End State" that Putin would expect to accomplish. What is his objective with a direct confrontation, by your estimation?
Right now Russia has its hands full with its Air Force operating in Syria and its Little Green Men operating in Novorussia/Eastern Ukraine. It's a country of ~130 million with a shaky economy and a military that is only partly through a period of modernization....a modernization that has been rudely interrupted by low oil prices and Western sanctions. They're not really in a position to go on the offensive against what remains the most powerful conventional military on the planet by far. And maybe you missed the part where Putin stated he was willing to talk about resetting/normalizing relations with the US, now that the Neocon Hillary isn't likely to be the Commander-in-Chief: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/p...
>the inevitable consequences of The Donald pulling the US out of NATO.
Heaven forbid that the second-largest economy in the world (the EU as a whole) actually man up and be fully responsible for its own defense.
The EU has a $16 trillion economy and a population of 510 million. You have two nuclear-armed countries (France, UK), who, along with Germany and Sweden, form a healthy and advanced defense industry. Add Poland, Finland, Italy, Spain.....and the conventional military force is pretty robust too.
Russia has a ~$1.5 trillion economy and a population of 146 million. They have an advantage in nuclear arms but a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage in conventional military strength compared to the whole EU.
So if you fear an invasion by a country with a tenth of your economy and less than half your manpower....you should probably do some push-ups and then join your national military. If you are unwilling to do those things, then the Russians probably deserve to plant a flag in your capital.
With who, the Russians, or the Chinese? Trump has repeatedly indicated he would normalize relations with Russia, has backed away from militarily supporting NATO allies who don't meet their 2% GDP military spending commitments, and (to my knowledge) has not advocated a No-Fly Zone in Syria.
Contrast with Clinton, who has repeatedly indicated she wants regime change is Syria, at the very least a No-Fly Zone in Syria....even though the airspace of the Syrian government is rather actively protected by the Russian military.
If you are concerned about a war with China, check out the articles below. Basically, Clinton is the one who wants to play hardball, but without operating from a position of strength. That's a good way to have the Chinese call your bluff. While Trump wants a stronger presence is Asia specifically to show China he's serious, he's quoted as saying he would reject a nuclear first strike. He has also expressed a greater willingness to diplomatically engage with China on the subject of North Korea. http://www.voanews.com/a/advis... http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/...
So many issues I have with this. First of all, yes you can tell the difference between airplanes and cruise missiles.
Clearly I wasn't specific enough about the concept. Take a Nanchang Q-5 or Chengdu J-7. Refit it is as a flying fully-autonomous drone, with a pre-programmed flight mission. The Chinese have already done this. It's very similar to how the US uses old F-4 Phantoms as flying target drones. This will still have the thermal and radar signature of the 3rd-generation aircraft frame. If you pick one up on radar, you have no idea if it's:
A. A human-piloted obsolete fighter on a Combat Air Patrol.
B. An unmanned, unarmed, dummy target.
C. An unmanned, unarmed fighter flying towards your airbase to kamikaze itself into your aircraft shelters.
Drones with any remote control capability are useless. Drones without any remote control are incredibly dangerous - as much to whoever fields them as they are to whoever they're fielded against. Once you send them up, all you can do is hope for the best.
And in China's case, "hope for the best" is either someone shoots it down (preferably wasting a BVR missile) or they fly on their merry way and either a) hit something valuable on the enemy's turf or b) reveal a gap in the enemy's CAP.
And if you're going that route, it better be part of a zerg-rush power projection play over someone else's homeland because otherwise you're likely going to cause more damage to your own people than your enemy
China would most likely employ them in an A2/AD strategy over the Taiwan Straits and the waters around the Senkakus/Okinawa. They're not going to be falling on Chinese cities....and even if they did, this is China we are talking about. Not exactly the most casualty-averse government, and one with a pretty tight grip on the media so they can spin drones falling out of the sky all kinds of ways.
And you don't have to engage them unless they're an actual threat.
See above. How are you going to assess if an autonomous Q-5/J-7 is a threat? Fly close enough to peek into the cockpit and notice there's no pilot?
So a $350,000 missile shooting down $25 Million aircraft; how's that going to work out in their favor?
Q-5, J-7, and J-8 airframes are already paid for. A US QF-4 conversion costs $800,000: (http://www.fencecheck.com/content/index.php?title=The_Final_Mission:_The_USAF%92s_QF-4_Target_Drones). Given the general purchasing power advantage in China I wouldn't be surprised if their conversions cost half that. And the cost-exchange ratio is largely irrelevant if the air campaign lasts days or weeks, and they achieve their operational and strategic objectives in the process.
while hitting air fields, munitions manufacturing sites, softer C&C targets, etc with long range cruise missiles
I haven't seen a Joint Target List for mainland China, but I'm intimately familiar with the Korean Theater. If you expect to significantly degrade the C2 and aviation capability of a country the size of the US, and one equipped with a far more advanced (albeit less dense) IADS than North Korea.....well, that's wishful thinking, to say the least.
then pull all the carrier strike groups into the region (not all together because you don't want to risk nuclear attacks taking out more than one at a time) including the ones on standby to start building sustainable power projection from the coast inland
The combat radius of carrier strike fighters is ~500nm. The combat radius of a JH-7A is 890nm. If you expect to project power inland you'll be well within range of anti-ship strikes, not to mention DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (assuming they work as designed).
B-2s escorted by F-22s would pound the Hell out of everything the cruise missiles can't tackle
Don't the marines use helicopters and Harriers for this role?
The Corps has 6 squadrons of Harriers.....and *13* squadrons of F-18s. So 2/3rds of our fixed wing assets are multi-role strike fighters flying from Navy carriers.
A F-35 can't fly slow and can't take nearly as much damage as the A-10 can and keep going - this is a byproduct of how it was designed to fulfill several roles and the compromises this involves. The aircraft is vulnerable to light arms fire, runs a single, big engine which is easy to damage, can carry very limited ordinance due to its internal bay arrangement and can load only 220 rounds of 25mm ammo.
All of those things are true, however...
By any measure it is a poor, poor CAS platform.
CAS is not a set of platform specs. It is an operational concept. A B-52 dropping JDAMS danger close to an infantry company is a CAS platform. Trends in digital CAS (submitting and prosecuting air support requests with digital data instead of voice radio and hand-written notes) + precision munitions = a reduced requirement for direct observation by the pilot's Mk. I Eyeball. Which also means you don't need an aircraft flying low, slow, and relying on its armor and gun runs. Improved targeting and marking equipment, both with ground personnel and on aviation platforms, facilitates accurate, higher-altitude delivery of munitions. DARPA and the Marine Corps understand this: http://www.darpa.mil/news-even...
There's a lot of reasons why I think the F-35 is a shitty overall acquisition, but an F-35B with an internal load of Small Diameter Bombs (once they make them actually fit inside the bomb bays), flying fast and stealthy (can't assume we'll have air dominance in the future) to put ordnance precisely on target, in support of an accurate digital air support request....yeah, that's probably the only thing the aircraft will ever get right. Eventually. Still won't be cost-effective though.
See my other response about what we use fixed-wing air support for: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... Fixed-wing aircraft operating in the Deep Area will need the ability to defend themselves, and benefit from stealth characteristics to evade engagement by Integrated Air Defense Systems. This is why we need a multi-role strike fighter, preferably with radar stealth.
We don't need Apaches, we have AH-1 Cobras. Apaches aren't navalized so operating them from maritime platforms would be a maintenance nightmare. The AH-1 has quite a bit of parts commonality with our UH-1s too.
When are they working in a theater of combat that the Air force or navy isn't maintaining air superiority for them?
Guadalcanal. Much of the Corps' approach to aviation was shaped by the Navy bugging out from Guadalcanal and leaving us with limited aviation assets.
The F-35 can typically provide CAS for two minutes - if you change the definition of CAS to include long range engagements.
You don't need to change the definition of CAS. The definition is about the need to closely coordinate the execution of the air mission with the forces on the ground. It does not mandate a short distance or low-altitude spatial relationship between the delivery platform and the target. Reference: Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Supporthttps://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod...
i can't figure how they want to replace the A-10 with it. There's simply no way a F-35 can fill in for CAS roles.
Why do people keep saying this? Have you ever seen an Air Tasking Order, especially one for a high-intensity conflict scenario? The Marine Corps accomplishes Close Air Support just fine (actually I'd argue we are THE most proficient military force in the world at integrated close air support) and we don't have A-10s at all.
I think shoehorning the Marine VTOL requirement into the same platform is the cause of 80% of the F-35's problems and limitations. We really should have our own dedicated aircraft, because our requirements are so different. But hey, nobody ever wants to fund our Service appropriately.....
Foxtrot Alpha had a decent article about how the whole "we need VTOL!!!" thing is probably overrated, and as another poster mentioned, the likelihood that we'll be able to properly maintain an F-35 in general, let alone its stealth characteristics, at an austere airfield, is near-zero.
Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficiently similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy.
The A-10 was purpose-designed for engaging hordes of Soviet tanks in Europe, and they were expected to take horrendous losses in the process (well, everything was if the Cold War went hot). With the proliferation of precision-guided munitions, close air support has evolved, and it has to given the tech advances in air-defense systems. Even A-10s are rarely prosecuting missions with low and slow gun runs. I have a thread I've bookmarked on F-16.net with amplifying information but I'm not at home to pull up the link for you.
So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10.
These problems with poorly-targeted air support requests are being addressed with the growth of digital close air support technology: http://www.darpa.mil/program/p...
If anything, CAS tactics have adapted to PGMs, not to the A-10 platform. Something like 80% of CAS missions are flown by F-16s dropping PGMs.
With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.
Citation needed. Seriously, if you have a scholarly article with data to support this assertion I want to read it, for some of my own related research.
We still use B-52 bombers because the new bombers don't work.
The new bombers work, they are just more expensive to operate.
(And we already have attack helicopters so what's with the military's VTOL fetish?)
You can't escort V-22 Ospreys with attack helicopters because the helicopters are too slow. Why do Ospreys need escort? Well they can't escort themselves because they designed the damn things with no weapons. Helis are also potentially too slow to prosecute time-sensitive targets.
You can't shape the battlespace by prosecuting targets in the Deep Area with attack helicopters because helis don't have the range, or the speed. And the Deep Area is also likely to have more robust enemy air defense assets, which would be a death sentence for rotary wing aircraft. That's exactly what the MEF Force Fires officer (a LtCol) said to me when I picked his brain on using compound helicopters for our aviation support.
Attack helicopters also have a narrower range of available ordnance. Good luck dropping a JDAM on an underground C2 bunker from an AH-1 Cobra.
Against China or Russia, you send F-22s, force them to ground everything they care about keeping, and then fill the skies with F-15s to clear out everything they don't care as much about.
In China's case, at least....that's not how the fight would go down. Basically they can throw a bunch of obsolete aircraft, converted into drones, into the air. You *HAVE* to engage them (at long range you can't tell if they are armed combat aircraft or basically big dumb cruise missiles, but either way you can't let them prosecute missions). The Chinese don't have to shoot down a single F-22, they just have to force the Combat Air Patrol to burn up the entire stockpile of AIM-120 AMRAAMs in theater. Once that is achieved, *THEN* they start putting all their good aircraft into the fight. I'm at work now so I don't have the relevant articles bookmarked (one stated they have converted HUNDREDS of Q-5s and the like to drones), but I think there was also a RAND study of how air superiority over the Taiwan Strait would play out, and it was basically the same assessment: the US can't keep enough combat power in the sky (partly due to basing, air refueling, weapons stocks, etc...) for our qualitative superiority to be sufficient.
Against any other opponent, including Russia, I agree with your assessment: sweep the skies with F-22s and then maintain superiority with Teen Series birds. I'm a big fan of the F-15 Strike Eagle in particular.
The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft
Some people have theorized this is actually what the Chinese J-20's role is: basically a stealthy F-111 strike aircraft, rather than an air superiority plane.
If this is the life style that you want, why dont you just hire prostitutes?
There's gotta be some miscommunication in my posts for you to suggest that as an alternative. I mean, if some awkward Slashdotter said "I hope to have a girlfriend some day" would you make the same suggestion "If that's the lifestyle you want, just pay for whores?". Running a personal harem is just dating multiple women simultaneously. No individual woman is perfect, so you "mix and match" with additional ones to get what you want in the aggregate. You usually have a "main chick", which is just like a normal relationship....and then you have "side bitches", that you typically invest less in emotionally but derive added quality of life from (mostly sexually, but not exclusively sex).
The time spent to get laid using scenarios you describe dont seem terribly cost effective when aggregated out by what I make per hour on average.
The time spent over a week on harem growth/maintenance isn't time that would be allocated to work, but to other forms of recreation or rest. You're not earning $100/hr at 11pm on your couch in most cases, so allocating two to four hours in that timeslot does not have an opportunity cost in potential wages.
Secondly, a reliable harem is FAR more cost effective than prostitution. You have a woman who meets you 2-3 times a month, you drive to a cheap love hotel ($25/ 2-3 hours), and you fuck twice in that time window. That works out to $12.50/orgasm, less if she splits the cost of the hotel with you, and less if calculated on an hourly rate. Whereas a prostitute of equal value (physical attractiveness and health) probably starts at $100/hour. And you can still take your harem women on DATES. If you spend $40 on an hour-long sushi date that STILL costs less than any halfway decent whore. A friend of mine has had the same primary side-bitch for TWO YEARS. He doesn't take her on dinner dates, he just occasionally hangs out with her and fucks her. Thousands of dollars saved.
Finally, you ignore the satisfaction derived from "sport fucking". Sport fucking is just like sport fishing. Patrice O'Neal covers it well here: https://youtu.be/6KzCfIYArmQ Do you understand that moment when you are seducing a new woman, and you see that look in her eyes that communicates "Yup...I'm ready to fuck you now." The satisfaction derived from unlocking a new chick's box is priceless, and worth the occasional bad date or frustrations. You sure as Hell don't get the same feeling handing a prostitute a stack of cash.
You seem to be valuing your lifestyle choises on a terribly superficial level. Even your conversational choices amongst male friends sound completely boring to me.
I'm genuinely curious, what do YOU sit around and talk about with other guys? The entropic heat death of the universe? The "meaning" of some arthouse indie films? Who is the better sci-fi author, Herbert or Heinlein? The only long-term friend I have with such interests is of course a journalist, and he lives in New York. The rest of my associates are all military men or engineers (99% from Eastern cultures: Vietnamese, Japanese, a few Persians and Afghanis, two Latin-Americans). There's no point trying to work Marcus Aurelius's Meditations into a conversation because nobody out here in Asia has read it. Nor do the people have any interest in navel-gazing about the direction of Western culture and its institutions. Material concerns are a focus here because most people don't have anything close to an American standard of living. Existential angst is a Western privilege. We are dealing with, generally speaking, higher pollution levels, much higher population densities, and don't have the sort of prescription or recreational drug options that are so popular in the US. Most people medicate with alcohol. But as a non-drinker and non-smoker, I (and most of my associates) prefer the 4 C's: cars, cash, cunts, computers.
It seems like your life experience is based around porno and that you actually talk to or really know very few women. Don't get me wrong, I like me some porn, but your "scenarios" are retarded. If any of those are actually based on real life they're based on taking advantage of those with low self esteem, something I've seen both men and women do.
Since it apparently wasn't obvious to you: all of those data points are real-life encounters, all from the past six months. Another point that seems to have flown right over your head: what women SAY != what women DO. If you or someone you trust cannot describe in detail the situation that led to a sexual encounter with each of those women then your dataset is incomplete. So of that group of women you "talk to or really know", how many have you FUCKED? Given that playboys often associate with other playboys....I'm pretty sure the total data points I have access to via our collective experiences is a statistically more significant, and more normally distributed, portion of the human female population than I suspect yours is.
And really "APEX" predator? I can't believe you weren't laughed at (I laughed at you). I started responding before i read the whole post and now that I'm at that, good god you're ridiculous.
She did laugh. She was having a good time. And I've had more than a few new acquaintances say "You are one of the most outrageous human beings I've ever met. I will never forget you."
Why not tell her you're batman while you're at it?
I prefer to use Tony Stark (mixed with a little James Bond) as an archetype instead. He's more upbeat, and has a closer relationship with the military-industrial complex. Do you remember this scene in Avengers: Capt America: "Take away the armor and what are you?" Ironman: "Gee I dunno, billionaire playboy genius philanthropist?"
Why not endeavour to enjoy a similar life? Wealthy (work in progress) playboy genius international defense contractor (fuck philanthropy, I don't do altruism). The bulk of my social circle is ex-military men, predominantly Marines, mostly expats, and more than a few small business owners. This is a common modus operandi. It's probably the most achievable proxy for a life of post-scarcity: it yields an abundance of time, an abundance of money, and an abundance of pussy......well, maybe not an abundance of time. Stories and experiences similar to what I've posted are the norm; we share them often in our group chats, with photos and screenshots of conversations with women as supporting evidence. The Marine Corps uses the Center for Lessons Learned to collect and disseminate After Action Reports. It builds institutional experience. Groups of successful man should have their own informal methods of doing the same.
I can only imagine what sort of shenanigans a billionaire like Trump would get into with anything close to a similar mindset. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for the guy...but I understand where he's coming from.
You were sleeping with an idiot. I guess getting off is great and all but you're certainly not sleeping with quality.
Define quality. I would define it as: reliable, reasonably psychologically stable (because all women are at least a LITTLE crazy), takes care of her body, puts out regularly, emotionally affectionate, doesn't nag. My definition doesn't mandate "IQ 2 standard deviations above the mean."
I've banged chicks with high school educations and I've banged chicks with Masters degrees. I prefer more educated women as they tend to comprehend what I'm saying outside of the bedroom, including responding better to more subtle styles of Game. But I live in one of the worst-educated Prefectures in Japan; trying to keep the harem stocked only with college-educated women is a labor-intensive endeavour. If I really want to have a quality conversation....I'll just go talk to another man.
I rarely chime in to these sort of discussions. I'm getting better at filtering out the opinions of blue-pillers/white knights/feminists online, just like I filter them out in real life. That said, your position in this post and your GP post struck a cord and I felt compelled to shed some life on the realities of a lifestyle that I think you are unfamiliar with.
Do you mind if I ask a few personal questions? Would you consider yourself a high-status male? Or an above-average-attractiveness male? Have you ever maintained a personal harem? I suspect the answer is "no" to all of those. Because such experiences would shed light on the nature of the female psyche and change your perspective on misogyny. Most people would agree with the idiom "actions speak louder than words". As you build up an experience base of romantic/sexual encounters with a diverse variety of women (age, ethnicity/nationality, education, etc.) you'll increasingly find a HUUUUGE (Trump pun intended) disconnect between their actions and their words. You will also find that a significant portion of the female population will sexually reward men who behave in a manner similar to what Trump describes. Google defines misogyny as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". Now consider these data points:
A 37yo (year old) divorced Japanese woman comes back to your place on the first date (no alcohol involved) and THEN asks "Do you have a girlfriend?" "Yes." "Ok, we're not fucking". "Look, I'm just trying to help you end your night on a high note. Don't throw away a good opportunity." "Oh really?" Fifteen minutes later you're fucking. And she stays in your harem for months afterwards, thankful every time you chose to kill an evening with her.
A 29yo Cali girl, Caucasian, from a wealthy family, educated in art history. She is introduced through friends on a short trip to Asia. While in a nightclub just hours after meeting her, you pull her towards you and bend her over, basically indicating "Grab your ankles and rub that big butt of yours on my groin."....She abruptly stands up and moves away, staring at you with a look of "OMG you asshole, I can't believe you just did that."......You still fuck her that night, and she spends the rest of the weekend with a look of contentment, happy to do anything you ask, from buying you dinner at a music festival to posing for erotic photos.
A 31yo mixed (Japanese/Brazilian) single mom, hairdresser divorced from an abusive Japanese husband years ago. She messages you on social media "please come meet me"...then while sitting in your car she alternates between aggressively kissing you and pushing you away from her like a bipolar nympho. "Look, I drove a long way to see you. I'm not leaving until you at least suck me off." "Next time." "If my dick doesn't go in one of your holes, there is no next time." She tears up for about 30 seconds. "See? Now you hurt me. That was mean." She still blows you.....and fucks you three weeks later, even knowing you have a girlfriend. She says, "You're an asshole....but I like you." then after you take her to sushi "You're not an asshole. I can learn from you." She asks for advice on getting/keeping a good man. "Don't be annoying, put out, cook....and take better care of your body. Do some squats. You're gonna get fat if you're not careful."
Consider that some alpha males come from work cultures where you are expected to follow through on your statements. If I'm a company commander and I tell my battalion commander "I'll commence my attack at 0800hrs"....then I damn well better commence my attack by 0800hrs. Not 0830hrs. Not even 0805hrs. It is a virtue to say what you mean, mean what you say, and *DO* what you say you will do. Now imagine how men from such an environment perceive women who constantly proclaim one thing about their romantic feelings/motivations/sexual proclivities and yet act in an opposite manner. Is contempt for the human female really surprising?
but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?
There are 7 billion people on this planet. Not all of them will have the skills, inclination, or experience to tackle the "big problems". Yet all of them need to make money so they can eat. It's inevitable that somebody, somewhere, will end up working on a project that seems insignificant. You're focusing on (for example) some mediocre Java/GUI developer in India who makes Android fart apps for $750/month and making it sound like he's in the wrong because he isn't doing his part to make the Large Hadron Collider more reliable. Nevermind the fact that CERN would never hire him anyway. We will never achieve 100% efficiency in the allocation of human labor to taskings, partly because we can't even all agree on what the "right" taskings are to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Japan. Japan is a nightmare when it comes to cell phone selection and service provider flexibility. I run CyanogenMod on my Motorola Razr M. Partly because I HATE Softbank's bloatware. However, the cell radio and battery life have both been terribly unstable/buggy. The phone is on its last legs and I bought a used Sony Xperia Zx Compact to replace it...but I bought it from AliExpress so I need to flash it with a custom ROM so I can stick my Softbank SIM card in it. Why do I go through all this trouble? Because Softbank doesn't sell a physically small (screen
I'm sitting in Vietnam right now after a week in Thailand. I carry a Chinese phone (Doogee X5 Pro) with a stock ROM that supports 2 SIM cards. All I have to do for 4G data + cellphone is grab a $10-15 SIM card in the airport. Which takes about 5 minutes. Sometimes I really love the free-wheeling nature of developing economies.
the US people preferred Clinton.
California preferred Clinton. Clinton's overall vote gap was, what, 3 million votes over Trump? But her vote gap in California was 4 million votes. So judging by just the OTHER 49 States Clinton lost the popular vote. Why should the rest of the country be held captive by the far left political preferences of just one state?
http://www.investors.com/polit...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...
There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
^This. I only have an anecdotal data point: I've spent a few days in Hong Kong and was amazed at how common the Model S is there. Residents there don't need to drive far, enjoy not having to pay for fuel, but definitely want something further up-market than a typical hybrid like a Prius so they can park next to their friend's/coworker's German luxo-barge without being embarrassed. The city is flush with money, so in an environment where basically price is no object it was nice to see so many people had chosen an American-made status symbol.
And if the drone became completely disoriented, it would be programmed to land safely and broadcast its location to its handlers.
Get (or observe) a few drone deliveries and do some SIGINT collection with an RTL-SDR to ID the freq range and strength of the drone's transmissions.
Once you do have a method to force a landing (which doesn't seem easy, BTW), broadcast with a cheap-ish SDR (probably a HackRF or the new LimeSDR) and a power amplifier to jam the drone's distress call.
Steal the drone and its cargo. Disable the drone's comms and sell on the black market.
What sort of stuff are they delivering with drones anyway? Gaming laptops? Gaming consoles? Either are pretty high value targets and easy to flip on the black/grey market, I would think...
Honestly, though, Trump has a lot of camera time talking about wanting his hot daughter's sexy body. We elected a pedophile who knows nothing about economics and wants to bang his daughter.
Nitpick: pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. Given that Trump's daughter Ivanka is a sexually-mature adult, she doesn't qualify. A more correct description of Trump would be incestuous .
Firstly....If they are going to assert porn = human trafficking, I wanna see some reliable evidence.
Secondly, if the objective is to "protect children"....will instructions for adults to remove the filters be included? If so, pretty much negates the point.
Thirdly, is the South Carolina market even large enough for most device manufacturers to justify this cost?
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
He's not referring to Iraqi army weapons that were captured in Iraq. He's referring to weapons that our government has stated it has supplied to Syrian rebels. Rebels which then either sold the weapons to jihadis, or were absorbed into larger jihadi organizations.
www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/ : "CIA-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official told CNN."
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120802
As soon as I saw "Tizen" in the headline, the article you linked is the first thing that came to my mind. I once had a passing interesting in Tizen development but resources/information/community help for developers is scant. Google searching will eventually lead you to the linked article and turn anyone sensible off of Tizen, IMO. These days, I'm trying to do everything with C++ (my most familiar language, but I'm not a programmer by trade), Qt, and Python.
Trump is a traitor to the US, beyond business dealings in Russia that compromise his judgement
Are you equally critical of the Clintons and their business dealings with Russia? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
he has already backed Russian interference in the democratic process that is the foundation of the US
Are you equally critical of the Obama administration's interference in the internal politics of Ukraine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Putin will attack the US unless he is killed or overthrown first
Please describe the Operational Plan/Scheme of Maneuver that you anticipate for Putin's attack on the US. Cyber attack? Strategic bombers? Nuclear weapons?If you are going to make such an accusation, you must foresee some "End State" that Putin would expect to accomplish. What is his objective with a direct confrontation, by your estimation?
Right now Russia has its hands full with its Air Force operating in Syria and its Little Green Men operating in Novorussia/Eastern Ukraine. It's a country of ~130 million with a shaky economy and a military that is only partly through a period of modernization....a modernization that has been rudely interrupted by low oil prices and Western sanctions. They're not really in a position to go on the offensive against what remains the most powerful conventional military on the planet by far. And maybe you missed the part where Putin stated he was willing to talk about resetting/normalizing relations with the US, now that the Neocon Hillary isn't likely to be the Commander-in-Chief: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/p...
>the inevitable consequences of The Donald pulling the US out of NATO. Heaven forbid that the second-largest economy in the world (the EU as a whole) actually man up and be fully responsible for its own defense.
The EU has a $16 trillion economy and a population of 510 million. You have two nuclear-armed countries (France, UK), who, along with Germany and Sweden, form a healthy and advanced defense industry. Add Poland, Finland, Italy, Spain.....and the conventional military force is pretty robust too.
Russia has a ~$1.5 trillion economy and a population of 146 million. They have an advantage in nuclear arms but a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage in conventional military strength compared to the whole EU.
So if you fear an invasion by a country with a tenth of your economy and less than half your manpower....you should probably do some push-ups and then join your national military. If you are unwilling to do those things, then the Russians probably deserve to plant a flag in your capital.
Because being a minority in the US has been such a BLAST (pun intended) so far?
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop...
am really worried that Trump will start WW3,
With who, the Russians, or the Chinese? Trump has repeatedly indicated he would normalize relations with Russia, has backed away from militarily supporting NATO allies who don't meet their 2% GDP military spending commitments, and (to my knowledge) has not advocated a No-Fly Zone in Syria.
Contrast with Clinton, who has repeatedly indicated she wants regime change is Syria, at the very least a No-Fly Zone in Syria....even though the airspace of the Syrian government is rather actively protected by the Russian military.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
http://www.ibtimes.com/will-us...
If you are concerned about a war with China, check out the articles below. Basically, Clinton is the one who wants to play hardball, but without operating from a position of strength. That's a good way to have the Chinese call your bluff. While Trump wants a stronger presence is Asia specifically to show China he's serious, he's quoted as saying he would reject a nuclear first strike. He has also expressed a greater willingness to diplomatically engage with China on the subject of North Korea.
http://www.voanews.com/a/advis...
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/...
So many issues I have with this. First of all, yes you can tell the difference between airplanes and cruise missiles.
Clearly I wasn't specific enough about the concept. Take a Nanchang Q-5 or Chengdu J-7. Refit it is as a flying fully-autonomous drone, with a pre-programmed flight mission. The Chinese have already done this. It's very similar to how the US uses old F-4 Phantoms as flying target drones. This will still have the thermal and radar signature of the 3rd-generation aircraft frame. If you pick one up on radar, you have no idea if it's:
A. A human-piloted obsolete fighter on a Combat Air Patrol.
B. An unmanned, unarmed, dummy target.
C. An unmanned, unarmed fighter flying towards your airbase to kamikaze itself into your aircraft shelters.
Drones with any remote control capability are useless. Drones without any remote control are incredibly dangerous - as much to whoever fields them as they are to whoever they're fielded against. Once you send them up, all you can do is hope for the best.
And in China's case, "hope for the best" is either someone shoots it down (preferably wasting a BVR missile) or they fly on their merry way and either a) hit something valuable on the enemy's turf or b) reveal a gap in the enemy's CAP.
And if you're going that route, it better be part of a zerg-rush power projection play over someone else's homeland because otherwise you're likely going to cause more damage to your own people than your enemy
China would most likely employ them in an A2/AD strategy over the Taiwan Straits and the waters around the Senkakus/Okinawa. They're not going to be falling on Chinese cities....and even if they did, this is China we are talking about. Not exactly the most casualty-averse government, and one with a pretty tight grip on the media so they can spin drones falling out of the sky all kinds of ways.
And you don't have to engage them unless they're an actual threat.
See above. How are you going to assess if an autonomous Q-5/J-7 is a threat? Fly close enough to peek into the cockpit and notice there's no pilot?
So a $350,000 missile shooting down $25 Million aircraft; how's that going to work out in their favor?
Q-5, J-7, and J-8 airframes are already paid for. A US QF-4 conversion costs $800,000: (http://www.fencecheck.com/content/index.php?title=The_Final_Mission:_The_USAF%92s_QF-4_Target_Drones). Given the general purchasing power advantage in China I wouldn't be surprised if their conversions cost half that. And the cost-exchange ratio is largely irrelevant if the air campaign lasts days or weeks, and they achieve their operational and strategic objectives in the process.
while hitting air fields, munitions manufacturing sites, softer C&C targets, etc with long range cruise missiles
I haven't seen a Joint Target List for mainland China, but I'm intimately familiar with the Korean Theater. If you expect to significantly degrade the C2 and aviation capability of a country the size of the US, and one equipped with a far more advanced (albeit less dense) IADS than North Korea.....well, that's wishful thinking, to say the least.
then pull all the carrier strike groups into the region (not all together because you don't want to risk nuclear attacks taking out more than one at a time) including the ones on standby to start building sustainable power projection from the coast inland
The combat radius of carrier strike fighters is ~500nm. The combat radius of a JH-7A is 890nm. If you expect to project power inland you'll be well within range of anti-ship strikes, not to mention DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (assuming they work as designed).
B-2s escorted by F-22s would pound the Hell out of everything the cruise missiles can't tackle
Where do you plan on flying F-
Don't the marines use helicopters and Harriers for this role?
The Corps has 6 squadrons of Harriers.....and *13* squadrons of F-18s. So 2/3rds of our fixed wing assets are multi-role strike fighters flying from Navy carriers.
A F-35 can't fly slow and can't take nearly as much damage as the A-10 can and keep going - this is a byproduct of how it was designed to fulfill several roles and the compromises this involves. The aircraft is vulnerable to light arms fire, runs a single, big engine which is easy to damage, can carry very limited ordinance due to its internal bay arrangement and can load only 220 rounds of 25mm ammo.
All of those things are true, however...
By any measure it is a poor, poor CAS platform.
CAS is not a set of platform specs. It is an operational concept. A B-52 dropping JDAMS danger close to an infantry company is a CAS platform. Trends in digital CAS (submitting and prosecuting air support requests with digital data instead of voice radio and hand-written notes) + precision munitions = a reduced requirement for direct observation by the pilot's Mk. I Eyeball. Which also means you don't need an aircraft flying low, slow, and relying on its armor and gun runs. Improved targeting and marking equipment, both with ground personnel and on aviation platforms, facilitates accurate, higher-altitude delivery of munitions. DARPA and the Marine Corps understand this: http://www.darpa.mil/news-even...
There's a lot of reasons why I think the F-35 is a shitty overall acquisition, but an F-35B with an internal load of Small Diameter Bombs (once they make them actually fit inside the bomb bays), flying fast and stealthy (can't assume we'll have air dominance in the future) to put ordnance precisely on target, in support of an accurate digital air support request....yeah, that's probably the only thing the aircraft will ever get right. Eventually. Still won't be cost-effective though.
Fixed-wing aircraft operating in the Deep Area will need the ability to defend themselves, and benefit from stealth characteristics to evade engagement by Integrated Air Defense Systems. This is why we need a multi-role strike fighter, preferably with radar stealth.
We don't need Apaches, we have AH-1 Cobras. Apaches aren't navalized so operating them from maritime platforms would be a maintenance nightmare. The AH-1 has quite a bit of parts commonality with our UH-1s too.
When are they working in a theater of combat that the Air force or navy isn't maintaining air superiority for them?
Guadalcanal. Much of the Corps' approach to aviation was shaped by the Navy bugging out from Guadalcanal and leaving us with limited aviation assets.
The F-35 can typically provide CAS for two minutes - if you change the definition of CAS to include long range engagements.
You don't need to change the definition of CAS. The definition is about the need to closely coordinate the execution of the air mission with the forces on the ground. It does not mandate a short distance or low-altitude spatial relationship between the delivery platform and the target. Reference: Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod...
i can't figure how they want to replace the A-10 with it. There's simply no way a F-35 can fill in for CAS roles.
Why do people keep saying this? Have you ever seen an Air Tasking Order, especially one for a high-intensity conflict scenario? The Marine Corps accomplishes Close Air Support just fine (actually I'd argue we are THE most proficient military force in the world at integrated close air support) and we don't have A-10s at all.
I think shoehorning the Marine VTOL requirement into the same platform is the cause of 80% of the F-35's problems and limitations. We really should have our own dedicated aircraft, because our requirements are so different. But hey, nobody ever wants to fund our Service appropriately..... Foxtrot Alpha had a decent article about how the whole "we need VTOL!!!" thing is probably overrated, and as another poster mentioned, the likelihood that we'll be able to properly maintain an F-35 in general, let alone its stealth characteristics, at an austere airfield, is near-zero.
Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficiently similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy.
The A-10 was purpose-designed for engaging hordes of Soviet tanks in Europe, and they were expected to take horrendous losses in the process (well, everything was if the Cold War went hot). With the proliferation of precision-guided munitions, close air support has evolved, and it has to given the tech advances in air-defense systems. Even A-10s are rarely prosecuting missions with low and slow gun runs. I have a thread I've bookmarked on F-16.net with amplifying information but I'm not at home to pull up the link for you.
So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10.
These problems with poorly-targeted air support requests are being addressed with the growth of digital close air support technology: http://www.darpa.mil/program/p... If anything, CAS tactics have adapted to PGMs, not to the A-10 platform. Something like 80% of CAS missions are flown by F-16s dropping PGMs.
With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.
Citation needed. Seriously, if you have a scholarly article with data to support this assertion I want to read it, for some of my own related research.
We still use B-52 bombers because the new bombers don't work.
The new bombers work, they are just more expensive to operate.
(And we already have attack helicopters so what's with the military's VTOL fetish?)
You can't escort V-22 Ospreys with attack helicopters because the helicopters are too slow. Why do Ospreys need escort? Well they can't escort themselves because they designed the damn things with no weapons. Helis are also potentially too slow to prosecute time-sensitive targets.
You can't shape the battlespace by prosecuting targets in the Deep Area with attack helicopters because helis don't have the range, or the speed. And the Deep Area is also likely to have more robust enemy air defense assets, which would be a death sentence for rotary wing aircraft. That's exactly what the MEF Force Fires officer (a LtCol) said to me when I picked his brain on using compound helicopters for our aviation support.
Attack helicopters also have a narrower range of available ordnance. Good luck dropping a JDAM on an underground C2 bunker from an AH-1 Cobra.
Against China or Russia, you send F-22s, force them to ground everything they care about keeping, and then fill the skies with F-15s to clear out everything they don't care as much about.
In China's case, at least....that's not how the fight would go down. Basically they can throw a bunch of obsolete aircraft, converted into drones, into the air. You *HAVE* to engage them (at long range you can't tell if they are armed combat aircraft or basically big dumb cruise missiles, but either way you can't let them prosecute missions). The Chinese don't have to shoot down a single F-22, they just have to force the Combat Air Patrol to burn up the entire stockpile of AIM-120 AMRAAMs in theater. Once that is achieved, *THEN* they start putting all their good aircraft into the fight. I'm at work now so I don't have the relevant articles bookmarked (one stated they have converted HUNDREDS of Q-5s and the like to drones), but I think there was also a RAND study of how air superiority over the Taiwan Strait would play out, and it was basically the same assessment: the US can't keep enough combat power in the sky (partly due to basing, air refueling, weapons stocks, etc...) for our qualitative superiority to be sufficient. Against any other opponent, including Russia, I agree with your assessment: sweep the skies with F-22s and then maintain superiority with Teen Series birds. I'm a big fan of the F-15 Strike Eagle in particular.
The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft
Some people have theorized this is actually what the Chinese J-20's role is: basically a stealthy F-111 strike aircraft, rather than an air superiority plane.
If this is the life style that you want, why dont you just hire prostitutes?
There's gotta be some miscommunication in my posts for you to suggest that as an alternative. I mean, if some awkward Slashdotter said "I hope to have a girlfriend some day" would you make the same suggestion "If that's the lifestyle you want, just pay for whores?". Running a personal harem is just dating multiple women simultaneously. No individual woman is perfect, so you "mix and match" with additional ones to get what you want in the aggregate. You usually have a "main chick", which is just like a normal relationship....and then you have "side bitches", that you typically invest less in emotionally but derive added quality of life from (mostly sexually, but not exclusively sex).
The time spent to get laid using scenarios you describe dont seem terribly cost effective when aggregated out by what I make per hour on average.
The time spent over a week on harem growth/maintenance isn't time that would be allocated to work, but to other forms of recreation or rest. You're not earning $100/hr at 11pm on your couch in most cases, so allocating two to four hours in that timeslot does not have an opportunity cost in potential wages.
Secondly, a reliable harem is FAR more cost effective than prostitution. You have a woman who meets you 2-3 times a month, you drive to a cheap love hotel ($25/ 2-3 hours), and you fuck twice in that time window. That works out to $12.50/orgasm, less if she splits the cost of the hotel with you, and less if calculated on an hourly rate. Whereas a prostitute of equal value (physical attractiveness and health) probably starts at $100/hour. And you can still take your harem women on DATES. If you spend $40 on an hour-long sushi date that STILL costs less than any halfway decent whore. A friend of mine has had the same primary side-bitch for TWO YEARS. He doesn't take her on dinner dates, he just occasionally hangs out with her and fucks her. Thousands of dollars saved.
Finally, you ignore the satisfaction derived from "sport fucking". Sport fucking is just like sport fishing. Patrice O'Neal covers it well here: https://youtu.be/6KzCfIYArmQ
Do you understand that moment when you are seducing a new woman, and you see that look in her eyes that communicates "Yup...I'm ready to fuck you now." The satisfaction derived from unlocking a new chick's box is priceless, and worth the occasional bad date or frustrations. You sure as Hell don't get the same feeling handing a prostitute a stack of cash.
You seem to be valuing your lifestyle choises on a terribly superficial level. Even your conversational choices amongst male friends sound completely boring to me.
I'm genuinely curious, what do YOU sit around and talk about with other guys? The entropic heat death of the universe? The "meaning" of some arthouse indie films? Who is the better sci-fi author, Herbert or Heinlein? The only long-term friend I have with such interests is of course a journalist, and he lives in New York. The rest of my associates are all military men or engineers (99% from Eastern cultures: Vietnamese, Japanese, a few Persians and Afghanis, two Latin-Americans). There's no point trying to work Marcus Aurelius's Meditations into a conversation because nobody out here in Asia has read it. Nor do the people have any interest in navel-gazing about the direction of Western culture and its institutions. Material concerns are a focus here because most people don't have anything close to an American standard of living. Existential angst is a Western privilege. We are dealing with, generally speaking, higher pollution levels, much higher population densities, and don't have the sort of prescription or recreational drug options that are so popular in the US. Most people medicate with alcohol. But as a non-drinker and non-smoker, I (and most of my associates) prefer the 4 C's: cars, cash, cunts, computers.
It seems like your life experience is based around porno and that you actually talk to or really know very few women. Don't get me wrong, I like me some porn, but your "scenarios" are retarded. If any of those are actually based on real life they're based on taking advantage of those with low self esteem, something I've seen both men and women do.
Since it apparently wasn't obvious to you: all of those data points are real-life encounters, all from the past six months. Another point that seems to have flown right over your head: what women SAY != what women DO. If you or someone you trust cannot describe in detail the situation that led to a sexual encounter with each of those women then your dataset is incomplete. So of that group of women you "talk to or really know", how many have you FUCKED? Given that playboys often associate with other playboys....I'm pretty sure the total data points I have access to via our collective experiences is a statistically more significant, and more normally distributed, portion of the human female population than I suspect yours is.
And really "APEX" predator? I can't believe you weren't laughed at (I laughed at you). I started responding before i read the whole post and now that I'm at that, good god you're ridiculous.
She did laugh. She was having a good time. And I've had more than a few new acquaintances say "You are one of the most outrageous human beings I've ever met. I will never forget you."
Why not tell her you're batman while you're at it?
I prefer to use Tony Stark (mixed with a little James Bond) as an archetype instead. He's more upbeat, and has a closer relationship with the military-industrial complex. Do you remember this scene in Avengers:
Capt America: "Take away the armor and what are you?"
Ironman: "Gee I dunno, billionaire playboy genius philanthropist?"
Why not endeavour to enjoy a similar life? Wealthy (work in progress) playboy genius international defense contractor (fuck philanthropy, I don't do altruism). The bulk of my social circle is ex-military men, predominantly Marines, mostly expats, and more than a few small business owners. This is a common modus operandi. It's probably the most achievable proxy for a life of post-scarcity: it yields an abundance of time, an abundance of money, and an abundance of pussy......well, maybe not an abundance of time. Stories and experiences similar to what I've posted are the norm; we share them often in our group chats, with photos and screenshots of conversations with women as supporting evidence. The Marine Corps uses the Center for Lessons Learned to collect and disseminate After Action Reports. It builds institutional experience. Groups of successful man should have their own informal methods of doing the same.
I can only imagine what sort of shenanigans a billionaire like Trump would get into with anything close to a similar mindset. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for the guy...but I understand where he's coming from.
You were sleeping with an idiot. I guess getting off is great and all but you're certainly not sleeping with quality.
Define quality. I would define it as: reliable, reasonably psychologically stable (because all women are at least a LITTLE crazy), takes care of her body, puts out regularly, emotionally affectionate, doesn't nag. My definition doesn't mandate "IQ 2 standard deviations above the mean."
I've banged chicks with high school educations and I've banged chicks with Masters degrees. I prefer more educated women as they tend to comprehend what I'm saying outside of the bedroom, including responding better to more subtle styles of Game. But I live in one of the worst-educated Prefectures in Japan; trying to keep the harem stocked only with college-educated women is a labor-intensive endeavour. If I really want to have a quality conversation....I'll just go talk to another man.
I rarely chime in to these sort of discussions. I'm getting better at filtering out the opinions of blue-pillers/white knights/feminists online, just like I filter them out in real life. That said, your position in this post and your GP post struck a cord and I felt compelled to shed some life on the realities of a lifestyle that I think you are unfamiliar with.
Do you mind if I ask a few personal questions? Would you consider yourself a high-status male? Or an above-average-attractiveness male? Have you ever maintained a personal harem? I suspect the answer is "no" to all of those. Because such experiences would shed light on the nature of the female psyche and change your perspective on misogyny. Most people would agree with the idiom "actions speak louder than words". As you build up an experience base of romantic/sexual encounters with a diverse variety of women (age, ethnicity/nationality, education, etc.) you'll increasingly find a HUUUUGE (Trump pun intended) disconnect between their actions and their words. You will also find that a significant portion of the female population will sexually reward men who behave in a manner similar to what Trump describes. Google defines misogyny as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". Now consider these data points:
A 37yo (year old) divorced Japanese woman comes back to your place on the first date (no alcohol involved) and THEN asks "Do you have a girlfriend?"
"Yes."
"Ok, we're not fucking".
"Look, I'm just trying to help you end your night on a high note. Don't throw away a good opportunity."
"Oh really?" Fifteen minutes later you're fucking. And she stays in your harem for months afterwards, thankful every time you chose to kill an evening with her.
A 29yo Cali girl, Caucasian, from a wealthy family, educated in art history. She is introduced through friends on a short trip to Asia. While in a nightclub just hours after meeting her, you pull her towards you and bend her over, basically indicating "Grab your ankles and rub that big butt of yours on my groin."....She abruptly stands up and moves away, staring at you with a look of "OMG you asshole, I can't believe you just did that."......You still fuck her that night, and she spends the rest of the weekend with a look of contentment, happy to do anything you ask, from buying you dinner at a music festival to posing for erotic photos.
A 31yo mixed (Japanese/Brazilian) single mom, hairdresser divorced from an abusive Japanese husband years ago. She messages you on social media "please come meet me"...then while sitting in your car she alternates between aggressively kissing you and pushing you away from her like a bipolar nympho. "Look, I drove a long way to see you. I'm not leaving until you at least suck me off."
"Next time."
"If my dick doesn't go in one of your holes, there is no next time." She tears up for about 30 seconds. "See? Now you hurt me. That was mean." She still blows you.....and fucks you three weeks later, even knowing you have a girlfriend. She says, "You're an asshole....but I like you." then after you take her to sushi "You're not an asshole. I can learn from you." She asks for advice on getting/keeping a good man. "Don't be annoying, put out, cook....and take better care of your body. Do some squats. You're gonna get fat if you're not careful."
Consider that some alpha males come from work cultures where you are expected to follow through on your statements. If I'm a company commander and I tell my battalion commander "I'll commence my attack at 0800hrs"....then I damn well better commence my attack by 0800hrs. Not 0830hrs. Not even 0805hrs. It is a virtue to say what you mean, mean what you say, and *DO* what you say you will do. Now imagine how men from such an environment perceive women who constantly proclaim one thing about their romantic feelings/motivations/sexual proclivities and yet act in an opposite manner. Is contempt for the human female really surprising?
Given how a level of sex
but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?
There are 7 billion people on this planet. Not all of them will have the skills, inclination, or experience to tackle the "big problems". Yet all of them need to make money so they can eat. It's inevitable that somebody, somewhere, will end up working on a project that seems insignificant. You're focusing on (for example) some mediocre Java/GUI developer in India who makes Android fart apps for $750/month and making it sound like he's in the wrong because he isn't doing his part to make the Large Hadron Collider more reliable. Nevermind the fact that CERN would never hire him anyway. We will never achieve 100% efficiency in the allocation of human labor to taskings, partly because we can't even all agree on what the "right" taskings are to begin with.