When commenting on an article about military stuff, I bring up my military background and those posts are also generally well-received.
That's because being in the military isn't something braggable, it's a neutral fact.
A lot of people would assert otherwise, starting with all those Stolen Valor idiots.
To many people, number of sexual partners is a braggable thing. For example, if you claimed to serve in the military, I'd believe you, because it's not an unreasonable thing to claim, lots of people have done it and so I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. If you claimed to be in some elite unit, I'd be rather more suspicious. If you claimed to be an F22 fighter pilot, your claims might come with a few truckloads of salt. If you wrote the navy-seal-copypasta, then I'd know you were a keyboard warrior.
See the difference?
I've known a lot of braggy guys who were full of shit in my years. For reasons that are pretty easy to follow, sexual conquests generally raise the bullshit flags really high.
I wouldn't call BS on an F-22 pilot or Spec Ops guy's claims until they demonstrated something factually incongruent. Depending on your own life experiences and those of your social circle, bagging ten married women can be low on the sliding scaling of potential bullshit. I can think of acquaintances who can make that claim and not get laughed out of the room, because they've demonstrated their skill as epic seducers in the past. But on the Internet, the BS flag gets thrown against sex-related life experiences almost immediately. Even for fairly low-level ones. And I find that strange.
However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with.
Question: are these hypotheticals or are you actually bragging about your conquests on slashdot?
When commenting on an article about engineering stuff, if someone brings up their experience as an engineer to provide an additional data point, it's not considered bragging.
When commenting on an article about military stuff, I bring up my military background and those posts are also generally well-received.
But on an article about adultery, someone brings up their experiences with adultery, and those experiences are poorly received. Disbelief about the veracity of such statements, IMO, says more about the life experiences of the skeptics than it does about the poster making the claims.
So you have no reservations about an alpha male copulating with a desirable female before you do, and then leaving you with the emotional and financial burden of his conquest (in the form of offspring)?
I'm sure every guy who has ever ejaculated in a woman who wasn't his wife has at least once thought "This could cause complications.....but that's ok, some schmuck will come along and pick up the pieces." You're ok being that hypothetical schmuck?
He/she might end up being easier to raise because he/she would have less chances of having the same genetic bugs than yours.
Do you have such low confidence in the quality of your genetic material that you consider another man's DNA an upgrade?
What do you expect from a country nearly completely owned by corporations/wealthy?
Japan is owned by corporations too, and the Japanese get raped in other ways. Things like key money: you basically pay a fee equal to several months rent just to move into an apartment. That's not a security deposit (that's additional $$$), we are talking pure cash into the housing agency's pocket. Combined with the security deposit and processing fees, changing apartments can cost you thousands of dollars up front.
Cars are another one. Anything imported is priced higher than they are in the US, but even Japanese-manufactured performance and luxury cars such as Lexus are marked up significantly. Taxes are displacement-based so if you have a muscle car, even if it's a comparatively fuel-efficient one, you will cry. A C7 Corvette with a 6.2L V8 gets 30mpg highway. A Mitsubishi Evolution X with a 2.0L turbo-4 gets ~25mpg highway...on a good day. The Corvette will cost $1,000 in taxes ANNUALLY. The Evo? Maybe half that..which is still high, but at least the roads are reasonably well-maintained here.
That said, the Japanese corporations and wealthy have mastered the art of keeping up appearances. They figured that if everyone stays employed, overworked, and largely ignorant of cost structures outside Japan, they'll be relatively docile despite being taken to the cleaners. And the uber-rich don't really flaunt their wealth and lifestyle quite the way Americans do. America's wealthy, on the other hand, gave us access to information sources from around the world (part of our global "national interests" and military adventures), constantly show us how well they are living, and then started firing everyone in favor of overseas workers and automation. A bunch of pissed off unemployed people with reduced food security and a window into better conditions elsewhere? Not to mention more guns that the rest of planet Earth COMBINED. How could America's elite ever think that would be sustainable?
Do you have more than 1 or 2 options when it comes to your internet service?
I think there is 1 cable modem company, 1 DSL, and maybe 2 fiber companies. I distinctly remember the options on-base were "shitty cable vs shittier DSL" (the Internet infrastructure on the military bases is crap, especially on Futenma, because no one wants to invest in a facility the Okinawans are aggressively trying to close). When I moved into my apartment off-base I was just told I could quickly activate the high-speed Internet for ~$30, so I didn't bother to shop around. For about 3 years it was ~100up/down, and was just recently upgraded to Gigabit (no charge, just an infrastructure upgrade). My ISP is actually owned and operated by a few ex-military foreigners.
A month ago a North Korean missile flew over Okinawa. Maybe even over my house. The emergency broadcast system beeped on my phone, and displayed a message I couldn't read. I just asked my GF what it was, said "Fuck Kim Jong Un", and went back to sleep.
Until the Chinese quadruple their blue-water sealift capacity, I'm not too worried about them either.
I have nothing to fear from Marines....I AM a Marine.
My chances of being murdered by an unstable law enforcement officer are ~0.0% in Japan. Being a minority, it's definitely a non-zero number in the US. Combine the safety with the quality IT infrastructure (except the crappy, overpriced, Japan-only smart phones), the women, and the car scene....yeah, I'm never coming back to America.
That's just depressing. I live in Japan and have Gigabit fiber (500 up/500down on Speedtest) for $30/month with no data cap. For $80 I get cellphone service (from a different company): unlimited 4G LTE and unlimited voice minutes for ~$80/month. Great for tethering my tablet or laptop when out of the house (or phones of friends visiting from out of Japan). America is raped by the service providers.
I live in Japan and just bought a Hitachi dehumidifier, but it was Made In China.
The Rinmai(?) gas range I've been using for over 2 years is still going strong. I think that was made locally...
While Japan has had some issues with auto-related products (Takata airbags especially), their precision manufacturing and electronic sub-components, i.e. things that are far more important to a space satellite, are still very well regarded. Rightfully so.
I really doubt the Japanese built something that just fell apart after 30 days in orbit. Hit by pre-existing orbital debris? If it were hit by a meteor coming from outside Earth orbit, the parts wouldn't be in quite the same area as the satellite afterwards, right?
What does it say about the state of the Eastern-European cybercrime industry if a hacker would rather transition to a White Hat instead of "lat moving" into full-on cybercrime? Is it not financially viable, even for a guy with his skill level? Is it too risky due to violence from competitors (cybercrime mafias are still *MAFIAS*)?
I think the opportunity costs of his options are more interesting than him doxing himself.
Because Russia invading a sovereign country is perfectly acceptable because they weren't doing what Russia wanted them to do. Of course, pointing to another country doing something kind of the same excuses what Russia is doing, it is all perfectly acceptable to annex the territory of another country.
Great Powers do it all the time. I don't expect it to change. But I do aim to point out the hypocrisy and/or naivete of anyone who thinks the US's foreign policy has altruistic motives or that the "Other Guys" are inherently evil.
Yeah, screw those other countries, China has a huge population, so they should just be able to steal territory that they have no valid claim to.
Might makes right. Just ask any sovereign nation that's been subject to a US invasion. As an aside, note that no nuclear-armed state has suffered a regime change at US hands. And yet Americans are surprised when antagonists pursue nuclear arms? As for "stealing territory they have no valid claim to"....the validity of their claim stems from their ability to enforce their will. Hence the fortification of their man-made islands. Also note that the US has progressed to a uniquely insidious alternative to directly "stealing" territory: the Petrodollar system. But it requires constant enforcement by the US, and controlling/manipulating central banks, financial institutions, and the exchange of oil are all aspects of this enforcement.
2000: Saddam was planning to switch sales of Iraqi oil from dollars to Euros. Within 3 years he was deposed.
2009: Gaddafi was doing his best to reconcile with the West. Unfortunately for him, he also planned a gold-and-oil-backed Libyan currency. He was dead within 3 years of shaking Obama's hand. And the "rebels" sure were quick to set up a Central Bank (less than 2 months into the civil war).
2012: Iran was planning to sell oil in exchange for gold. Despite having them bracketed with bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military was in no position to invade. So Iran instead found themselves promptly disconnected from global financial institutions: http://www.reuters.com/article...
2014: Ukraine has a revolution....and suddenly all the gold is missing from their central bank. Now they are stuck with fiat currency and IMF obligations. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
Meanwhile, Russia and China are buying up gold like crazy ( http://www.mining.com/china-ru... ), and started their own alternative-IMF (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Both have stated intentions to end the US's hegemonic influence. These are two nuclear-armed Great Powers that are closing the conventional military gap, and despite shaky economies, having been consistently moving to eliminate US dollar influence across their entire sphere of influence. Which, IMO, will eventually be a good thing for everyone, including the average (productive) American citizen.
Oh, let us ignore all the people Assad was murdering, and that a large percentage of the population wants him out of office.
If you have a problem with murderous heads of state that are unpopular, perhaps you should look a little closer to home before trying to solve other people's problems? https://theintercept.com/drone...
Lets just prop up that dictator because he is our friend and is nice to us.
Yes, the Russian relationship with Assad closely parallels the relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Ya know, the guys who are busy bombing the shit out of Yemen? These are also the same people who are VERY close ideologically to ISIS and al Qaeda....who we've spent the past 15 yea
I know you are being somewhat facetious, but I suspect these positions aren't too far from your actual beliefs, therefore....
Yep, Russia meddled and took part of Georgia because the evil U.S. was there. And they decided to steal part of the Ukraine for the same reason.
Because the US State Department spending $5 billion to "influence" the political situation in a country directly on Russia's border couldn't *possibly* provoke a response, right? Crimea is one of Russia's few warm-water ports and an essential link to the Mediterranean. How do you think the US would respond to political instability in Panama, especially if it was caused by another major world power? Oh wait, we already know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And those islands in the S. China Sea, why Vietnam and the other nations to which they are closer are only doing the bidding of the U.S. hence the need for China to militarize them.
Something like 80% of the sea traffic going through the SCS is either to or from China. China, which is ~20% of humanity, compared to ~2% combined for Vietnam and the Philippines. Do the Needs of the Many and the Greater Good not apply? And US think tanks have written extensively about strangling raw material imports to China in the event of a conflict. Yeah, no way the Chinese might have a rational self-interest in securing the lifeline to their economy in their own backyard.
. And Assad of Syria, we just know he was playing secret footsie with Americans before he decided to slaughter his people and chase a few million out of the country.
Don't you think Assad would rather have a few million additional taxpayers contributing to his economy, even if significant portions of them are the unhappy Sunni majority? He certainly seemed to be getting along fine in 2010. Funny how the provision of funding, foreign fighters, and weapons from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey (all Sunni states) roughly coincides with Assad's refusal to allow the planned Qatari/Saudi pipelines across his country. Pipelines to Europe that would undercut his patron Russia's economic interests.
On a related note, do you express as much disgust at the suppression of popular dissent in Bahrain, or is that ok because King Hamad of Bahrain "is our man"?
Marine corps wanted a plane for infantry support. A new A-10.
So, the A-35 can be a "fighter" as they say, but can it really do the work A-10 is doing?
In the "balloon goes up" exercises/scenarios that we use to train our forces in the Pacific, the Air Tasking Orders almost never feature A-10s in support of the Marine MAGTF. Our fixed-wing close air support is almost always AV-8Bs or F/A-18C/Ds, with the occasional Navy Super Hornet. We process dozens of immediate Joint Tactical Air Requests daily during the major phases of ground combat (not to mention any pre-planned targets), and we do it without ever having access to sections of A-10s. Part of the reason we are able to do this is because our aviators are heavily trained for CAS, and everyone is taught on the same tactics/techniques/procedures for smooth integration of fires. USAF aviators are primarily A2A guys and they don't speak the same language as the Army troops they are supposed to support.
That said, the F-35 can't carry much internal ordnance, and currently can't fit the *Small Diameter* Bomb in its weapon bays. For the money that we are spending, I don't think we are getting a good value at all. I think the USAF and USN should have shared a multirole design, basically a stealthy F-18. The Corps should have procured its own VTOL jet. After reading on WarIsBoring how the VTOL jet concept has never Worked As Designed (launching from austere airfields after the Navy flattops depart), I'm honestly wondering if we should adopt a compound helicopter and eliminate the Corps' fixed-wing CAS platforms entirely. A Compound Heli would have the speed and range necessary to escort Ospreys (AH-1s can't keep up), but we can operate them from LHAs/LHDs/LPDs easily, and carry more birds too.
Can it give actual close air support to troops on ground? Loiter over enemy positions, firing armor piercing ammo to tanks and APC-s?
Why do so many people on the Internet associate CAS with slow-turning gun runs? Must be the pro-A-10 PR that has burned this image in people's minds. Close = "must coordinate with the ground commander to avoid killing friendlies". That's it. Some people will argue that dropping bombs from fast jets, accurately, isn't always an option. This is largely because our air-ground communications assets/methods are woefully archaic. It's why DARPA, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps are pushing such rapid progress on PCAS: http://www.darpa.mil/program/p...
What good the 4 internally carried missiles are doing in that situation?
You never know when you might encounter "leakers", enemy aircraft that have slipped past the Combat Air Patrol. ALL fighters carry some kind of ordnance for emergency self-defense.
The CIA has definitely done some things in its history, but it hasn't been supporting these fighters since Reagan.
Complaints about the CIA are honestly like complaining about the conquistadors now. They're a part of history. They had their impact, but their active involvement in the events of today pales in comparison to the forces now at work.
from: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA's overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden."
While we're not trying to "steal" oil, we are definitely trying to keep the area stable enough so that no one can grab it and hold it for ransom. That is why we need forces in the region and why we need to remain interested.
Iraq in 2002 had a stable secular dictatorship and virtually no problem with Islamic extremists. We removed the government in 2003 and the resulting power vacuum (and the unemployment of vast numbers of trained military officers) directly led to the creation of ISIS. Not to mention the expansion of Iranian influence amongst the majority-Shia population.
Libya had a somewhat-stable dictatorship that had made amends with the West, and Gaddaffi was arguably well on his way to putting down his Arab Spring rebellion....until we intervened and bombed all of his tanks. Now Libya is also a major ISIS base.
Syria had one of the lowest crime rates and highest levels of development in the MidEast ~2009. We conspired with the Turks and Qataris to accelerate "regime change" (because the Qataris and Saudis want a natgas pipeline to Europe through Syrian territory) and now the refugee crisis might very well collapse the European Union!
This is your idea of the US "keeping the area stable"?
Note that in Iran-Contra, we armed Iran with TOW missiles and some anti-aircraft Hawk missiles. As far as I can tell, the terrorists, ISIS, Taliban or whoever are not using TOW missiles and certainly not antiaircraft missile batteries.
Well, here's the difference: the last 7 years people have been working on how to get universal health care, instead of trying to define exactly how much it's ok to torture people.
That's because this administration has taken the approach of "We don't need to discuss torture.....if we simply shoot Hellfire missiles at everyone who even remotely has the SIGINT signature of a "terrorist"......including American citizens.
The drone has a *control range* of 160ft.....but the camera can probably see much farther. I dunno if they can stream video to the control station, but if so:
1. Camera drone operator sits in a concealed/covered position, such as behind a low wall or in a building.
2. Drone flies up over the wall to observe Israeli troop convoy approaching.
3. Drone operator radios the IED team.The IED team is also in a concealed position, with a buried wire running to the IED.
4. IED team detonates at the drone operator's command when the lead vehicle reaches the killzone.
All fires and obstacles need to be observed. Small commercial drones enable forces to maintain a visual of the target without exposing precious personnel. They are definitely a useful force multiplier, even if "toy grade".
And I don't see any reason why the Palestinians should not have them.
The Tesla car has higher instantaneous torque and a flat torque curve. The cost for me to drive 300 miles on gasoline is around $25 now; on biofuel, it's around $35; on diesel, it's around $12; on electricity, it's $3. Battery storage loses less energy in conversion than biofuel chemical storage. Electric cars are less complex and require less maintenance than reciprocating piston engines. Superior power, performance, durability, longevity, and cost doesn't seem inferior.
While I'm a huge fan of Tesla, I also greatly enjoy my dinosaur-burning sports cars. So I'm going to argue a few points here. For comparison's sake, consider a Chevy SS, powered by a LS3 6.2L OHV aluminum V8. IMO one of the greatest engines ever invented. Let's also consider a hypothetical engine swap with the torque-monster direct-injected LT1 from the Camaro and Corvette (the LS3's direct successor engine).
1. Performance. While the Tesla has instantaneous torque, the LT1 still delivers 300 lb-ft at ~1000RPM. That's barely above idle. Also, the SS is about 10% lighter than the lightest ~315hp Model S (4,000 vs 4400lbs), so the power to weight ratio is vastly superior. While the P85D probably skews outright power back in favor of Tesla, the damn thing weights nearly 5,000lbs. And the P85D is a 6-figure car. For the extra cost of that package, forced induction can be easily added to the V8 and return the balance of power to the Chevy.
2. Durability/longevity. Jury is still out on this one as I'm waiting to see how barely-maintained 10-year-old Model S's hold up. But pretty much all the kinks have been worked out of the LS engine platform and T56 6-speed manual transmissions. The only engines in the family that aren't utterly bulletproof are the 7.0L LS7 (high-G oil starvation during track use) and the supercharged LT4 (quality control during fabrication).
3. Fuel cost. Starting price on a Model S is ~$30,000 more than a Chevy SS. You would have to drive 400,000 miles to break even via fuel savings.
I'm really curious how you conclude that "power, performance...and cost" don't seem inferior on the electric cars.
LOL, you don't think the military has figured out this frequency hopping problem yet and Homeland Security/FBI et.al. hasn't purchased the necessary hardware?
Me thinks you are bit naïve...
I'm almost finished my Masters thesis on frequency-hopping software-defined radios, so I'm pretty sure neither naivete nor ignorance is a factor. Until recently, the hardware systems involved with frequency memory and principal component analysis, especially over a high bandwidth, were neither cheap nor widespread. This is partly because there aren't too many opponents outside of national militaries who are using FHSS comm systems. The first thing the Feds have to do is realize you are using FHSS in the first place. Then allocate some of those expensive EW assets to monitor or jam your comms.
Like most forms of security, you don't expect to be invulnerable, but to force your opponent to expend a disproportionate amount of resources to compromise your operations.
If you are already breaking the law, why let FCC regulations stop you?
If you are using frequency-hopping + encryption + proper radio protocols (short, bursty conversations), Big Brother will have a Hell of a time triangulating your position and decrypting your comms traffic.
I thought this article was about the flight computer used in the Prowler Electronic Attack aircraft....
Aren't they out of service? How did the aircraft get a flight computer from the 30's? How could Gene Roddenberry possibly get his hands on a (then-modern) military aircraft computer during the original Star Trek's run?
The problem is we didn't really see Ren hurting from the gunshot wound. We saw him get shot, and we occasionally saw him wince and bleed, but that doesn't really register with the audience. If I could see him obviously hobbled or otherwise hurting as he fought it might be relevant,
I'm not sure why that wouldn't "register with the audience", it registered fine with me. He was pretty obviously trying to muscle through the pain of his injury, and succeeding.
but what I actually saw on the screen was Ren defeating Fin by a narrow margin,
He aggressively dominated the tempo against Finn from the first blow, culminating in burning a hole in his shoulder. Finn recovered enough to score a glancing blow on Ren's shoulder, after which Ren promptly disarms him in 2 moves. I don't consider that a narrow margin but I suppose we could argue the point indefinitely.
and losing to... the girl with a slightly less memorable name. Ren as the bad guy is frankly not scary.
I think that kind of issue was indicative of the movie, there's decent ideas but they didn't think them through so they didn't really work. Imagine if Ren was a rage-filled fanatic with a ridiculous amount of power instead of a little kid with a temper tantrum. Now I'm actually scared of him.
I think he works as a realistic villain partly because he's *NOT* an all-powerful badass. He's young, inexperienced, and highly unpredictable. He's not disciplined enough to control his powers well. It reminds me of a Vice video I saw about hitmen in Peru: most of the sicarios are teenagers. Kids on a power trip are not to be taken lightly.
More to the point think about how meaningless it was when they Death Star fired and blew up a Republic that basically had no role in the movie.
Agreed on this point. It's a persistent problem with JJ Abrams and his sense of world-building and scale (or lack thereof). And now I'm wondering how a movie with a 2-hour runtime can somehow not find time for a few scenes to help get the audience emotionally invested in the consequences of Starkiller Base.
I realize that exercise isn't a priority for most geeks
And having served as a Marine Corps Officer, I think I'm more familiar with physical exertion than most geeks. You emphasized the distance ran, I would emphasize getting shot, and from a noticeably high-powered weapon at that. If you shot me in the side with a Dragunov rifle (which fires the same 7.62x54mm rounds as the PKM light machine gun) and told me to run the Marine Corps obstacle course ( less than 100m), and THEN fight another Marine....I'd almost certainly lose, regardless of the melee skills of my opponent.
But Ren didn't lose, he won. The entire argument of "Ep7 sucks because the Dark Jedi lost a saber fight with a Stormtrooper" is moot...because it's factually incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
When commenting on an article about military stuff, I bring up my military background and those posts are also generally well-received.
That's because being in the military isn't something braggable, it's a neutral fact.
A lot of people would assert otherwise, starting with all those Stolen Valor idiots.
To many people, number of sexual partners is a braggable thing. For example, if you claimed to serve in the military, I'd believe you, because it's not an unreasonable thing to claim, lots of people have done it and so I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. If you claimed to be in some elite unit, I'd be rather more suspicious. If you claimed to be an F22 fighter pilot, your claims might come with a few truckloads of salt. If you wrote the navy-seal-copypasta, then I'd know you were a keyboard warrior.
See the difference?
I've known a lot of braggy guys who were full of shit in my years. For reasons that are pretty easy to follow, sexual conquests generally raise the bullshit flags really high.
I wouldn't call BS on an F-22 pilot or Spec Ops guy's claims until they demonstrated something factually incongruent. Depending on your own life experiences and those of your social circle, bagging ten married women can be low on the sliding scaling of potential bullshit. I can think of acquaintances who can make that claim and not get laughed out of the room, because they've demonstrated their skill as epic seducers in the past. But on the Internet, the BS flag gets thrown against sex-related life experiences almost immediately. Even for fairly low-level ones. And I find that strange.
However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with.
Question: are these hypotheticals or are you actually bragging about your conquests on slashdot?
When commenting on an article about engineering stuff, if someone brings up their experience as an engineer to provide an additional data point, it's not considered bragging.
When commenting on an article about military stuff, I bring up my military background and those posts are also generally well-received.
But on an article about adultery, someone brings up their experiences with adultery, and those experiences are poorly received. Disbelief about the veracity of such statements, IMO, says more about the life experiences of the skeptics than it does about the poster making the claims.
Who cares if it ain't yours?
So you have no reservations about an alpha male copulating with a desirable female before you do, and then leaving you with the emotional and financial burden of his conquest (in the form of offspring)? I'm sure every guy who has ever ejaculated in a woman who wasn't his wife has at least once thought "This could cause complications.....but that's ok, some schmuck will come along and pick up the pieces." You're ok being that hypothetical schmuck?
He/she might end up being easier to raise because he/she would have less chances of having the same genetic bugs than yours.
Do you have such low confidence in the quality of your genetic material that you consider another man's DNA an upgrade?
What do you expect from a country nearly completely owned by corporations/wealthy?
Japan is owned by corporations too, and the Japanese get raped in other ways. Things like key money: you basically pay a fee equal to several months rent just to move into an apartment. That's not a security deposit (that's additional $$$), we are talking pure cash into the housing agency's pocket. Combined with the security deposit and processing fees, changing apartments can cost you thousands of dollars up front.
Cars are another one. Anything imported is priced higher than they are in the US, but even Japanese-manufactured performance and luxury cars such as Lexus are marked up significantly. Taxes are displacement-based so if you have a muscle car, even if it's a comparatively fuel-efficient one, you will cry. A C7 Corvette with a 6.2L V8 gets 30mpg highway. A Mitsubishi Evolution X with a 2.0L turbo-4 gets ~25mpg highway...on a good day. The Corvette will cost $1,000 in taxes ANNUALLY. The Evo? Maybe half that..which is still high, but at least the roads are reasonably well-maintained here.
That said, the Japanese corporations and wealthy have mastered the art of keeping up appearances. They figured that if everyone stays employed, overworked, and largely ignorant of cost structures outside Japan, they'll be relatively docile despite being taken to the cleaners. And the uber-rich don't really flaunt their wealth and lifestyle quite the way Americans do. America's wealthy, on the other hand, gave us access to information sources from around the world (part of our global "national interests" and military adventures), constantly show us how well they are living, and then started firing everyone in favor of overseas workers and automation. A bunch of pissed off unemployed people with reduced food security and a window into better conditions elsewhere? Not to mention more guns that the rest of planet Earth COMBINED. How could America's elite ever think that would be sustainable?
Do you have more than 1 or 2 options when it comes to your internet service?
I think there is 1 cable modem company, 1 DSL, and maybe 2 fiber companies. I distinctly remember the options on-base were "shitty cable vs shittier DSL" (the Internet infrastructure on the military bases is crap, especially on Futenma, because no one wants to invest in a facility the Okinawans are aggressively trying to close). When I moved into my apartment off-base I was just told I could quickly activate the high-speed Internet for ~$30, so I didn't bother to shop around. For about 3 years it was ~100up/down, and was just recently upgraded to Gigabit (no charge, just an infrastructure upgrade). My ISP is actually owned and operated by a few ex-military foreigners.
A month ago a North Korean missile flew over Okinawa. Maybe even over my house. The emergency broadcast system beeped on my phone, and displayed a message I couldn't read. I just asked my GF what it was, said "Fuck Kim Jong Un", and went back to sleep.
Until the Chinese quadruple their blue-water sealift capacity, I'm not too worried about them either.
I have nothing to fear from Marines....I AM a Marine.
My chances of being murdered by an unstable law enforcement officer are ~0.0% in Japan. Being a minority, it's definitely a non-zero number in the US. Combine the safety with the quality IT infrastructure (except the crappy, overpriced, Japan-only smart phones), the women, and the car scene....yeah, I'm never coming back to America.
That's just depressing. I live in Japan and have Gigabit fiber (500 up/500down on Speedtest) for $30/month with no data cap. For $80 I get cellphone service (from a different company): unlimited 4G LTE and unlimited voice minutes for ~$80/month. Great for tethering my tablet or laptop when out of the house (or phones of friends visiting from out of Japan). America is raped by the service providers.
I live in Japan and just bought a Hitachi dehumidifier, but it was Made In China.
The Rinmai(?) gas range I've been using for over 2 years is still going strong. I think that was made locally...
While Japan has had some issues with auto-related products (Takata airbags especially), their precision manufacturing and electronic sub-components, i.e. things that are far more important to a space satellite, are still very well regarded. Rightfully so.
I really doubt the Japanese built something that just fell apart after 30 days in orbit. Hit by pre-existing orbital debris? If it were hit by a meteor coming from outside Earth orbit, the parts wouldn't be in quite the same area as the satellite afterwards, right?
So much for "Big Sky Little Bullet"...
What does it say about the state of the Eastern-European cybercrime industry if a hacker would rather transition to a White Hat instead of "lat moving" into full-on cybercrime? Is it not financially viable, even for a guy with his skill level? Is it too risky due to violence from competitors (cybercrime mafias are still *MAFIAS*)?
I think the opportunity costs of his options are more interesting than him doxing himself.
Some of that data is already available, from Pentagon internal reports: https://theintercept.com/drone...
FORMER DRONE OPERATORS SAY THEY WERE “HORRIFIED” BY CRUELTY OF ASSASSINATION PROGRAM https://theintercept.com/2015/...
Because Russia invading a sovereign country is perfectly acceptable because they weren't doing what Russia wanted them to do. Of course, pointing to another country doing something kind of the same excuses what Russia is doing, it is all perfectly acceptable to annex the territory of another country.
Great Powers do it all the time. I don't expect it to change. But I do aim to point out the hypocrisy and/or naivete of anyone who thinks the US's foreign policy has altruistic motives or that the "Other Guys" are inherently evil.
Yeah, screw those other countries, China has a huge population, so they should just be able to steal territory that they have no valid claim to.
Might makes right. Just ask any sovereign nation that's been subject to a US invasion. As an aside, note that no nuclear-armed state has suffered a regime change at US hands. And yet Americans are surprised when antagonists pursue nuclear arms? As for "stealing territory they have no valid claim to"....the validity of their claim stems from their ability to enforce their will. Hence the fortification of their man-made islands. Also note that the US has progressed to a uniquely insidious alternative to directly "stealing" territory: the Petrodollar system. But it requires constant enforcement by the US, and controlling/manipulating central banks, financial institutions, and the exchange of oil are all aspects of this enforcement.
2000: Saddam was planning to switch sales of Iraqi oil from dollars to Euros. Within 3 years he was deposed.
2009: Gaddafi was doing his best to reconcile with the West. Unfortunately for him, he also planned a gold-and-oil-backed Libyan currency. He was dead within 3 years of shaking Obama's hand. And the "rebels" sure were quick to set up a Central Bank (less than 2 months into the civil war).
2012: Iran was planning to sell oil in exchange for gold. Despite having them bracketed with bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military was in no position to invade. So Iran instead found themselves promptly disconnected from global financial institutions: http://www.reuters.com/article...
2014: Ukraine has a revolution....and suddenly all the gold is missing from their central bank. Now they are stuck with fiat currency and IMF obligations. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... Meanwhile, Russia and China are buying up gold like crazy ( http://www.mining.com/china-ru... ), and started their own alternative-IMF (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Both have stated intentions to end the US's hegemonic influence. These are two nuclear-armed Great Powers that are closing the conventional military gap, and despite shaky economies, having been consistently moving to eliminate US dollar influence across their entire sphere of influence. Which, IMO, will eventually be a good thing for everyone, including the average (productive) American citizen.
Oh, let us ignore all the people Assad was murdering, and that a large percentage of the population wants him out of office.
If you have a problem with murderous heads of state that are unpopular, perhaps you should look a little closer to home before trying to solve other people's problems? https://theintercept.com/drone...
Lets just prop up that dictator because he is our friend and is nice to us.
Yes, the Russian relationship with Assad closely parallels the relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Ya know, the guys who are busy bombing the shit out of Yemen? These are also the same people who are VERY close ideologically to ISIS and al Qaeda....who we've spent the past 15 yea
Yep, Russia meddled and took part of Georgia because the evil U.S. was there. And they decided to steal part of the Ukraine for the same reason.
Because the US State Department spending $5 billion to "influence" the political situation in a country directly on Russia's border couldn't *possibly* provoke a response, right? Crimea is one of Russia's few warm-water ports and an essential link to the Mediterranean. How do you think the US would respond to political instability in Panama, especially if it was caused by another major world power? Oh wait, we already know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And those islands in the S. China Sea, why Vietnam and the other nations to which they are closer are only doing the bidding of the U.S. hence the need for China to militarize them.
Something like 80% of the sea traffic going through the SCS is either to or from China. China, which is ~20% of humanity, compared to ~2% combined for Vietnam and the Philippines. Do the Needs of the Many and the Greater Good not apply? And US think tanks have written extensively about strangling raw material imports to China in the event of a conflict. Yeah, no way the Chinese might have a rational self-interest in securing the lifeline to their economy in their own backyard.
. And Assad of Syria, we just know he was playing secret footsie with Americans before he decided to slaughter his people and chase a few million out of the country.
Don't you think Assad would rather have a few million additional taxpayers contributing to his economy, even if significant portions of them are the unhappy Sunni majority? He certainly seemed to be getting along fine in 2010. Funny how the provision of funding, foreign fighters, and weapons from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey (all Sunni states) roughly coincides with Assad's refusal to allow the planned Qatari/Saudi pipelines across his country. Pipelines to Europe that would undercut his patron Russia's economic interests.
On a related note, do you express as much disgust at the suppression of popular dissent in Bahrain, or is that ok because King Hamad of Bahrain "is our man"?
Marine corps wanted a plane for infantry support. A new A-10.
So, the A-35 can be a "fighter" as they say, but can it really do the work A-10 is doing?
In the "balloon goes up" exercises/scenarios that we use to train our forces in the Pacific, the Air Tasking Orders almost never feature A-10s in support of the Marine MAGTF. Our fixed-wing close air support is almost always AV-8Bs or F/A-18C/Ds, with the occasional Navy Super Hornet. We process dozens of immediate Joint Tactical Air Requests daily during the major phases of ground combat (not to mention any pre-planned targets), and we do it without ever having access to sections of A-10s. Part of the reason we are able to do this is because our aviators are heavily trained for CAS, and everyone is taught on the same tactics/techniques/procedures for smooth integration of fires. USAF aviators are primarily A2A guys and they don't speak the same language as the Army troops they are supposed to support.
That said, the F-35 can't carry much internal ordnance, and currently can't fit the *Small Diameter* Bomb in its weapon bays. For the money that we are spending, I don't think we are getting a good value at all. I think the USAF and USN should have shared a multirole design, basically a stealthy F-18. The Corps should have procured its own VTOL jet. After reading on WarIsBoring how the VTOL jet concept has never Worked As Designed (launching from austere airfields after the Navy flattops depart), I'm honestly wondering if we should adopt a compound helicopter and eliminate the Corps' fixed-wing CAS platforms entirely. A Compound Heli would have the speed and range necessary to escort Ospreys (AH-1s can't keep up), but we can operate them from LHAs/LHDs/LPDs easily, and carry more birds too.
Can it give actual close air support to troops on ground? Loiter over enemy positions, firing armor piercing ammo to tanks and APC-s?
Why do so many people on the Internet associate CAS with slow-turning gun runs? Must be the pro-A-10 PR that has burned this image in people's minds. Close = "must coordinate with the ground commander to avoid killing friendlies". That's it. Some people will argue that dropping bombs from fast jets, accurately, isn't always an option. This is largely because our air-ground communications assets/methods are woefully archaic. It's why DARPA, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps are pushing such rapid progress on PCAS: http://www.darpa.mil/program/p...
What good the 4 internally carried missiles are doing in that situation?
You never know when you might encounter "leakers", enemy aircraft that have slipped past the Combat Air Patrol. ALL fighters carry some kind of ordnance for emergency self-defense.
The CIA has definitely done some things in its history, but it hasn't been supporting these fighters since Reagan.
Complaints about the CIA are honestly like complaining about the conquistadors now. They're a part of history. They had their impact, but their active involvement in the events of today pales in comparison to the forces now at work.
from: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA's overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden."
While we're not trying to "steal" oil, we are definitely trying to keep the area stable enough so that no one can grab it and hold it for ransom. That is why we need forces in the region and why we need to remain interested.
Iraq in 2002 had a stable secular dictatorship and virtually no problem with Islamic extremists. We removed the government in 2003 and the resulting power vacuum (and the unemployment of vast numbers of trained military officers) directly led to the creation of ISIS. Not to mention the expansion of Iranian influence amongst the majority-Shia population.
Libya had a somewhat-stable dictatorship that had made amends with the West, and Gaddaffi was arguably well on his way to putting down his Arab Spring rebellion....until we intervened and bombed all of his tanks. Now Libya is also a major ISIS base.
Syria had one of the lowest crime rates and highest levels of development in the MidEast ~2009. We conspired with the Turks and Qataris to accelerate "regime change" (because the Qataris and Saudis want a natgas pipeline to Europe through Syrian territory) and now the refugee crisis might very well collapse the European Union!
This is your idea of the US "keeping the area stable"?
Note that in Iran-Contra, we armed Iran with TOW missiles and some anti-aircraft Hawk missiles. As far as I can tell, the terrorists, ISIS, Taliban or whoever are not using TOW missiles and certainly not antiaircraft missile batteries.
It's well-known that the CIA and Turkey have been supplying TOWs to Syrian insurgents, and their weapons often end up in ISIS hands.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.almasdarnews.com/ar...
Well, here's the difference: the last 7 years people have been working on how to get universal health care, instead of trying to define exactly how much it's ok to torture people.
That's because this administration has taken the approach of "We don't need to discuss torture.....if we simply shoot Hellfire missiles at everyone who even remotely has the SIGINT signature of a "terrorist"......including American citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Drone Papers report: https://theintercept.com/drone...
The drone has a *control range* of 160ft.....but the camera can probably see much farther. I dunno if they can stream video to the control station, but if so:
1. Camera drone operator sits in a concealed/covered position, such as behind a low wall or in a building.
2. Drone flies up over the wall to observe Israeli troop convoy approaching.
3. Drone operator radios the IED team.The IED team is also in a concealed position, with a buried wire running to the IED.
4. IED team detonates at the drone operator's command when the lead vehicle reaches the killzone.
All fires and obstacles need to be observed. Small commercial drones enable forces to maintain a visual of the target without exposing precious personnel. They are definitely a useful force multiplier, even if "toy grade".
And I don't see any reason why the Palestinians should not have them.
The Tesla car has higher instantaneous torque and a flat torque curve. The cost for me to drive 300 miles on gasoline is around $25 now; on biofuel, it's around $35; on diesel, it's around $12; on electricity, it's $3. Battery storage loses less energy in conversion than biofuel chemical storage. Electric cars are less complex and require less maintenance than reciprocating piston engines. Superior power, performance, durability, longevity, and cost doesn't seem inferior.
While I'm a huge fan of Tesla, I also greatly enjoy my dinosaur-burning sports cars. So I'm going to argue a few points here. For comparison's sake, consider a Chevy SS, powered by a LS3 6.2L OHV aluminum V8. IMO one of the greatest engines ever invented. Let's also consider a hypothetical engine swap with the torque-monster direct-injected LT1 from the Camaro and Corvette (the LS3's direct successor engine).
1. Performance. While the Tesla has instantaneous torque, the LT1 still delivers 300 lb-ft at ~1000RPM. That's barely above idle. Also, the SS is about 10% lighter than the lightest ~315hp Model S (4,000 vs 4400lbs), so the power to weight ratio is vastly superior. While the P85D probably skews outright power back in favor of Tesla, the damn thing weights nearly 5,000lbs. And the P85D is a 6-figure car. For the extra cost of that package, forced induction can be easily added to the V8 and return the balance of power to the Chevy.
2. Durability/longevity. Jury is still out on this one as I'm waiting to see how barely-maintained 10-year-old Model S's hold up. But pretty much all the kinks have been worked out of the LS engine platform and T56 6-speed manual transmissions. The only engines in the family that aren't utterly bulletproof are the 7.0L LS7 (high-G oil starvation during track use) and the supercharged LT4 (quality control during fabrication).
3. Fuel cost. Starting price on a Model S is ~$30,000 more than a Chevy SS. You would have to drive 400,000 miles to break even via fuel savings.
I'm really curious how you conclude that "power, performance...and cost" don't seem inferior on the electric cars.
Open-source software-defined radios. No FHSS/encryption "built in" so the manufacturer isn't liable.
GNU Radio already supports digital and voice encryption.
LOL, you don't think the military has figured out this frequency hopping problem yet and Homeland Security/FBI et.al. hasn't purchased the necessary hardware?
Me thinks you are bit naïve...
I'm almost finished my Masters thesis on frequency-hopping software-defined radios, so I'm pretty sure neither naivete nor ignorance is a factor. Until recently, the hardware systems involved with frequency memory and principal component analysis, especially over a high bandwidth, were neither cheap nor widespread. This is partly because there aren't too many opponents outside of national militaries who are using FHSS comm systems. The first thing the Feds have to do is realize you are using FHSS in the first place. Then allocate some of those expensive EW assets to monitor or jam your comms.
Like most forms of security, you don't expect to be invulnerable, but to force your opponent to expend a disproportionate amount of resources to compromise your operations.
Ref:
Modern Communications Jamming: Principles and Techniques especially Chapter 12
If you are already breaking the law, why let FCC regulations stop you?
If you are using frequency-hopping + encryption + proper radio protocols (short, bursty conversations), Big Brother will have a Hell of a time triangulating your position and decrypting your comms traffic.
I thought this article was about the flight computer used in the Prowler Electronic Attack aircraft....
Aren't they out of service? How did the aircraft get a flight computer from the 30's? How could Gene Roddenberry possibly get his hands on a (then-modern) military aircraft computer during the original Star Trek's run?
but that's the EA-6B......
The problem is we didn't really see Ren hurting from the gunshot wound. We saw him get shot, and we occasionally saw him wince and bleed, but that doesn't really register with the audience. If I could see him obviously hobbled or otherwise hurting as he fought it might be relevant,
I'm not sure why that wouldn't "register with the audience", it registered fine with me. He was pretty obviously trying to muscle through the pain of his injury, and succeeding.
but what I actually saw on the screen was Ren defeating Fin by a narrow margin,
He aggressively dominated the tempo against Finn from the first blow, culminating in burning a hole in his shoulder. Finn recovered enough to score a glancing blow on Ren's shoulder, after which Ren promptly disarms him in 2 moves. I don't consider that a narrow margin but I suppose we could argue the point indefinitely.
and losing to... the girl with a slightly less memorable name. Ren as the bad guy is frankly not scary.
I think that kind of issue was indicative of the movie, there's decent ideas but they didn't think them through so they didn't really work. Imagine if Ren was a rage-filled fanatic with a ridiculous amount of power instead of a little kid with a temper tantrum. Now I'm actually scared of him.
I think he works as a realistic villain partly because he's *NOT* an all-powerful badass. He's young, inexperienced, and highly unpredictable. He's not disciplined enough to control his powers well. It reminds me of a Vice video I saw about hitmen in Peru: most of the sicarios are teenagers. Kids on a power trip are not to be taken lightly.
More to the point think about how meaningless it was when they Death Star fired and blew up a Republic that basically had no role in the movie.
Agreed on this point. It's a persistent problem with JJ Abrams and his sense of world-building and scale (or lack thereof). And now I'm wondering how a movie with a 2-hour runtime can somehow not find time for a few scenes to help get the audience emotionally invested in the consequences of Starkiller Base.
I realize that exercise isn't a priority for most geeks
And having served as a Marine Corps Officer, I think I'm more familiar with physical exertion than most geeks. You emphasized the distance ran, I would emphasize getting shot, and from a noticeably high-powered weapon at that. If you shot me in the side with a Dragunov rifle (which fires the same 7.62x54mm rounds as the PKM light machine gun) and told me to run the Marine Corps obstacle course ( less than 100m), and THEN fight another Marine....I'd almost certainly lose, regardless of the melee skills of my opponent.
But Ren didn't lose, he won. The entire argument of "Ep7 sucks because the Dark Jedi lost a saber fight with a Stormtrooper" is moot...because it's factually incorrect.