First off, I worry about any country that's almost even with the US as far as land mass goes, but still insists the country be on one and only time zone.
"with an economy 5 times larger than that of the USA by the year 2020. "
That's an awful lot of zeroes there. China's economy is mainly focused on manufacturing ("goods," if you will). If the rest of the world doesn't keep pace to be able to buy Chinese-manufactured goods, then there's no way China can reach such a huge number.
Also, you may be underestimating the gap between the U. S. and the rest of the world. We don't just have the highest gross domestic product in the world, but runners up like Japan and the UK are on-par only with some of the larger states like CA and TX. Most of the rest of the world are lucky if they can keep up with poorer states like WV and MS.
"All it takes is a blip for america to spiral into recession whil China steams ahead."
You're not giving US resiliency and economic strength enough credit. Within a decade or two of the end of the American Revolution, we had the largest merchant fleet in the world. At the end of our Civil War, we had the most powerful army on the globe (but quickly dismantled it). In the midst of the Great Depression, the US was able to help win a war of attrition on two fronts, even after starting late int he game. Even after the end of the Cold War, our economy allows us the luxury of keeping military that can fight a war on two fronts, of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, AND send people into space to boot.
You're also forgetting how much the rest of the world depends on the US economy. The NYSE crashes in 1929, and the whole world has to swallow it. New York has been the main economic center of the world for at least a century. A catostrophic decline like you're speaking of would mean a second Great Depression for the world.
If anything, we'll have a slow and graceful decline/leveling off like the UK has had.
"Many in the world will be wary of this new power, but it is well known that China is a much more outward looking nation that america historically speaking, and far less insular. "
You say this of the "Middle Kingdom," self-declared center of the world? Watch the news sometime, when diplomats on either side are talking. If there's a map of the world behind them, study it. You'll note that the maps shown on the US side set the edges of the map at 180 degrees longitude, putting Europe and Africa right in the middle. In China, on the other hand, they take liberties with it to make sure that China is right in the middle. Highlighted, even.
"It also does not have territorial ambitions, beyond claiming back its old lands, like Taiwan."
I didn't realize that Nepal, the Spratleys, Vietnam, Kashmir, the Russian Far East, etc. were traditionally Chinese.
In comparison, the US has been letting go of land for the past half-century or so. The Panama Canal. The Philippines. Numerous Pacific islands. We've given Puerto Rico the opportunity to leave numerous times with open and fair elections.
"The chinese do not send spyplanes over America",
The Chinese have no access to a Japan-equivalent. Look at where the P-3 was flying out of. I'm quite sure they keep an eye on the various US bases in the area, though, and I doubt the People's Army-Navy wanted access to port facilities in Long Beach just for the convenient location.
And, finally, there's the question of the Chinese military's ability to be a super power. Current analysis shows Taiwan having a military on-par if not stronger than the mainland's (minus the nuclear weapons bit, of course).
I've read a few reports that suggest that China's culture keep it from truly becoming a world power as well. (This was on a private mailing list, so I can't give you a link, but I can cut-and-paste if there are requests). I'll sum up:
First off, the civillian government doesn't trust its military (which may or may not be justified). Because of this, they promote officers on basis of loyalty instead of skill. Reading Chairman Mao's works is more important than reading Sun Tzu's.
Secondly, the Party and other cultural factors provide China with a comparatively rigid class structure. While this may not seem important, here's the analogy that was used:
You have a US F-16 and an Egyptian F-16. Both have identical problems with hydraulics. Both of their ground crews spot it. Both of the pilots want to take it up for a spin. Both ground crews are all non-coms, both pilots are officers.
In the US, the boss of the ground crew tells the US pilot that the plane has mechanical problems and their plane is grounded until repairs are finished. The US pilot accepts that he's SOL and goes to find something else to do.
In Egypt, on the other hand, you don't get to be an officer (especially a pilot) unless you're in the upper class, while the ground crew are of the lower classes. The Egyptian seargent knows that if he were to have the nerve to tell the pilot that the plane shouldn't be flown, he'll likely get beaten for his trouble (being the peon scum that he is). So, the Egyptian pilot takes the plane up, and Egypt now has one less expensive plane and one even more expensive pilot.
Advantage: United States.
Even more damning is the way that the lower classes are short-changed come budget time. The Egyptian pilot may be up to US standards (perhaps even trained by the US), but the ground crew sure wouldn't.
(I'm not saying that the US has no classes, just that the upper classes are much more prone to listen to sound advice from the lower classes).
"I for one welcome our new leaders to be."
Looking at their past history, if that were to come true, I'd be much more likely to exersize my 2nd Ammendment rights.
"The americans decide to teach the fighter pilot a lesson and do a little wing waggle or the like to give him a scare. Nobody here has ever had the temptation to pull on their car's emergency brake while some idiot is tailgating, right? "
This assumes that the pilot was willing to risk a rather expensive airplane (in terms of both money and intelligence) when 23 other people are watching and can (and probably will in all the required paperwork) report to their boss. Driving aggressively is OK as long as it's not your dad's $200,000 Porche. Otherwise, you're in the right lane, hands at 9 and 3, going about 5 under the limit.
"I have heard no mention of the acceptability of the spying mission. "
The plane was using purely passive detectors, picking up photons that were headed their way, anyway. This is 100% legal to do even within the U. S. Why do you think the smart drug dealers have sworn off cell phones?
Looking at the physiology differences between the genders, if this entire situation was handled by women, the chances are that the situation would be worse, not better.
As you probably know, most male mammals end up fighting with each other for various reasons (turf, women, insulting each others' mothers, whatever), and humans are no exception. However, if all of these fights were to the death, the species would die off pretty quickly, since the number of available males would drop off. So, the males managed to develop a "surrender reflex," where they'll give up when they know they're beaten. He who fights and runs away lives to mate another day.
However, the role of the females are a little different. They have the "protect the young" gene, where fighting to the death is the name of the game. Letting an enemy live allows them to come back and try it again.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us with women more dangerous than men in a fight-or-flight situation.
If you don't believe me, go down to your local club and ask the bouncers there. They'll tell you that in fights, guys tend not to use sharp objects unprovoked, and will cooperate once they know they're beat. The women, though, fight tooth, nail, and spike heel throughout, and even try to get back in to continue the fight with the bouncers.
I've also heard similar tales from border patrol agents. When caught smuggling something, male suspects are more willing to cooperate when they learn they've been caught red-handed, while the women tend to fight on (sometimes literally) until the bitter end.
This doesn't mean that women would make lousy presidents (dealing with crises is only part of the job description, and sometimes "to the death" is more desirable than appeasement), just that women can't solve all the world's problems.
"This is important aerospace research, and if you read the article, it's pretty easy to see why. The ability to fly at such speeds for intercontinental, oceanic flights is of great societal benefit. Speed of transport will make this work commercially."
Doubtful. Supersonic jets bring loud engines and louder sonic booms. This means that such a jet will only be able to fly out of a handful of airports, limiting the number of planes that will be sold, which limits the price of seats to the social elite.
... kinda like Concorde...
"The military aspects are a bit more challenging, though. If you're going to build a bomber so fast it can't be shot down, fine--but then you have to either slow down the craft so that the munitions can exit the slipstream, or you have to come up with some design that will allow you to drop iron at high speeds--such as the Valkyrie, which dropped munitions out the tail."
1.) Spy planes. And I mean real spy planes, not the glorified P-3 Orion that the press has been quick to call a "spy plane" recently.:)
2.) Rapid response time. Sure, it may be an engineering problem of figuring out how to shoot at people or drop bombs on the, but it might be worth it for the 3-4 hour response time to hit just about anybody in the world.
"But this won't replace STS. Yes, a scramjet is nice. Yes, this is similar to rocket-based combined cycle. But we could more cheaply build a reliable, two-stage system to get into orbit."
Wouldn't this be useful as the first stage of a two-stage system?
I think the internet can help more or less eliminate national borders only if the people on both sides of the borders are willing to communicate, internet or otherwise. If both sides are unwilling to communicate (1914 Europe), or if one side doesn't give a damn about talking (1938 Europe), then neither telegraph lines nor geostationary satellites will prevent conflict.
Nationality isn't so much a problem in communications as culture. Yankees are Yankees, Canuks are Canuks, but that hasn't caused us to shoot at each other for 187 years or so. However, Indians are Hindus and Pakistanis are Muslims, and that DOES give then cause to shoot at each other (which sounds odd to us who sit in a third culture).
So far, I think the current situation is going along as well as can be expected for such vastly different cultures. It might go along more smoothly if the Chinese were more willing to meet us in the middle (we've been saying "accident" since the beginning, and we seem to have more or less written off the plane as a loss, but China's demands are the same as day one), but the Seventh Fleet hasn't blockaded Hainan island, and the crew hasn't been put on trial. About the worst that could happen right now is a big step back to 1990 or so.
Just to be picky, I don't belive the SR-71 has dedicated ramjets. The engines are some sort of bastardization of a ramjet and a turbojet (I want to say "turbo-ramjet") that lets it get up to speeds wehre the ramjet part is efficient.
OK, so I'm an American, so I'm a bit biased, but it still seems you over-simplified this a bit.
"Second to none when it comes to macho military posturing, the U.S. can't say it's sorry for the accident and bring everybody home. Various grim-faced U.S. officials, from the President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State, have been rushing around in their big black limos, and issued guarded expressions of concern and sadness, but nobody can quite bring himself to say the magic words. "
Being macho may or may not have something to do with it, but it is not the sole reason, nor even the main reason. If the U. S. were to apologize in the manner that the P. R. C. wants, not only will we be saying "I'm sorry I hit your plane," but also "I'm sorry we flew flights over your water." After all, there shouldn't be any problem in flying such flights through international water.
If the South China Sea isn't international water (which the P. R. C. has been claiming for decades), this leaves a lot of other people wide open to be "collectivized" or "assimilated" or whatever you want to call it. "You see? The U. S. even admits that it's our water, so then they also agree we own the Spratley Islands." (For those that don't know, the Spratleys are a resource-rich area of the world that's been claimed by at least five nations). This could worsen the water disputes between the P. R. C. and Vietnam (two nations that have already been to war once). This could even affect islands as far away from China as the Philippines.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for more information on the complexities of this corner of the world.
The news is focusing on the crew of the airplane, and maybe on the airplane's technology, but the big issue between the politicians is really the water the plane was flying over. If this were in the Yellow Sea (between the Korean penninsula and mainland China), this wouldn't be anywhere near as big an issue.
If you feel that we should say those "magic words" and more or less abandon that part of the world to a known oppressive and expansionist government (who's to say that they'll stop at the South China Sea? They haven't stopped with Nepal, Kashmir, Taiwan, Vietnam, and it took the Soviet nuclear arsenal to convince them not to spread north as well), then you can go ahead and play the isolationlist game. Just remember that that's exactly what the U. S. was doing at the beginning of both world wars.
"If FreeRepublic allowed for anonymous users than how the heck is this trespassing? Or did FreeRepub just make an exception to the rule and say "Well everyone else can be anonymous, just not X"?"
Analogy time.
You can walk into Wal-Mart whenever you want. They don't ask for your name, card you at the door, require membership, and so on. However, it doesn't mean that the graffiti you paint on their walls is covered by free speech. Nor does it mean that harassing their customers also counts as free speech.
"Thats one the problems a company should address with a diclaimer in order to not fall into the legal handlings of someone claiming dire crimes against them. People should know, when your on the Internet, especially exchanging during a forum, your not going to find that everyone is Sally fucking Jo Homemaker with etiquette."
That sounds like the "She should have known she was asking for it with that 'outfit' she had on!" defense in a rape trial.
"The problem I see, is that not much was done by those who had their information posted, to hide their information in the first place. Don't they know what privacy is, or was it until someone bitched about it, they turned and said, "Oh my maybe I should not have made my login name maryjosuefrom21mainstreetbirminghamalabama@someshi t.com""
So if I don't lock my car, it's not really grand theft auto any more? If I'm not wearing a gun, it's not a mugging? How far are you willing to carry this logic?
As much as I dislike any political rhetoric, I have to admit that that sounds stereotypically liberal. "It wasn't my fault!"
"The problems with the Internet and legal related issues, is that many of the laws are so broad, theres no way to detail what exactly constitutes a crime."
This is what courts are for.
"I think I'm gonna sue Slashdot if anyone clinks this link. Since by getting slashdotted afterwards, its Slashdot's fault for allowing this to happen."
You'd only have a case if/. said "Everyone click on this link at least twenty times so that we can crash it. And then we can do the same thing in an hour."
Because if the NSA don't like your information, you're going to jail, it's as simple as that.
Then you can call it "illegal search and siezure." You'll be in jail for a while until a lawyer gets their hands on the cash cow that you are, and then you can sue for damages and then some. On the other hand, if Microsoft finds something they don't like (anything that violates their liscencing agreements), you still go to jail, but can't complain about how they found that information. You DID click "I agree" when you first installed Windows XP, after all. Actually, you can't complain period if they have their way with UCITA.
We're sorry your elite pilots in their advanced jet fighters seem to have difficulty avoiding a P-3 Orion (designed around 1955). We're sorry that your "official" accounts had the fighters 400 m from the P-3, and then changed to 5 km, still without explaining how something as old and slow as the P-3 was able to close such a large gap so quickly (even if the P-3 was capable of mach 1 (!), it would still take almost two seconds to close that 400 m gap). We're sorry that you appearantly don't equip your pilots with emergency radio beacons for when they eject (something that can often be found on the smallest US boat). We're sorry that you're trying to claim that islands as far out as the Philippenes are sitting in your territorial water. We're sorry that you have a collection of intercontinental ballistic missiles gives us reason to want to keep an eye on you with surveillance planes.
And, last but not least, we're sorry that your wounded pride prevents you from looking at the situation objectively and keeping a cool head.
But we're not sorry that your fighters were flying dangerously close to our plane, causing an ACCIDENT. The U. S. wouldn't purposefully put their surveillance equipment in jeopardy, and, unless the Chinese government lives up to its reputation, the F-8 pilots probably weren't ordered to collide with our plane, either.
Of course, if saving face after a disaster is more imporant to you than continued participation in trade with the rest of the world, and more important than pissing off one of Taiwan's main arms suppliers, that's your problem, not mine. Then again, if the People's Republic were more level-headed, Taiwan probably wouldn't need to buy arms from the U. S. to begin with.
And get your damned propoganda spam back on topic.
The paranoid are going to think that SELinux is in some way compromised by the NSA, no matter how unrealistic it seems (paranoia is an irrational by definition, after all). However, this leaves you with one more question: Who would you rather have access to your information, the NSA, or Microsoft? U. S. citizens at least have the option of complaining to Congress, taking them to court, et al. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a habit of negating all your legal rights through their liscening scheme. Just look at the recent Passport fiasco.
The NSA has to worry about the GAO breathing down their necks and the CIA, DIA, and FBI competing with them in some things. Microsoft is a monopoly. Who's going to be the one to worry more about the end-user?
You mean it's taken this long for them to ADMIT they've gotten here. There's no reason not to believe that the NSA has been using Linux for years and has only come forward with thier implementation of it after Windows' risks to national security has reached a certain threshold.
If the NSA has to be working with an operating system, I'd prefer it to be Linux. Even if they were to put in back doors, at least the users have the legal right to look at the source code and try to find it and fix it. And I can almost guarentee that anything that has the NSA stamp of approval on it will be rigorously tested by the community, if for no other reason than because it says "NSA" on it.
That's an interesting accusation. I had Win2KPro installed in order to use it to get an MCSE (mortgaging my soul to Microsoft for money to pay for college with). I am now an MCP with Win2KPro. According to Microsoft's rhetoric, I should be quite adept at getting it configured correctly. But it's still more unstable than my previous Linux installation(s).
Let's see... The Loch Ness Monster can't be proven to exist. At the same time, without draining the lake and having a look-see once and for all, the existance of the monster can't be disproven, either. If you can't prove or disprove something, it's not in the realm of science.
The process referred to as "cold fusion" produces excess heat in a reproducible reaction, and cannot be accounted for by any known processes. It can be proven to exist (or not to exist, if somebody offered a plausible explaination instead of whining about the Loch Ness Monster and what-not). Therefore, it's science.
Any questions?
"This idea that there is almost a conspiracy of scientists who are so involved in the existing paradigm that they deny our wonderful new trailblazers their proper due is a common trope of almost all pseudoscience."
So is generalization. By your logic...
Flying is a trait of almost all birds.
Bats can fly
Therefore, a bat is a bird
Emus can't fly
Therefore, an emu is not a bird
Of course, this is all besides the point, because assumptions and science shouldn't mix.
"The book being reviewed here is no different than any number of similar books you can find defending any number of pseudoscientific theories. "
I've seen some works of pseudoscience. They rarely have references, or, if they do, tend to reference to bogus works, works by the same author or publisher, or non-scientific works (like, say, the Bible).
Also, they tend not to have forwards written by Arthur C. Clarke, but that's besides the point.
"and, as one person pointed out, clearly was not any form of fusion"
So, if I mistakenly name it wrong, it doesn't exist. Got it.
Maybe it's not fusion. Maybe it's something different. Whatever it is, there is more heat than modern physics and thermodynamics seem to allow. But, because they decided to call it "cold fusion," it must be bogus, hm?
"millions of dollars was spent trying to replicate these experiments, "
Money != success. The N1 program cost the Soviet Union an arm and a leg, and yet their launch success rate was 0:5. Did they fail because it wasn't possible to build a rocket to get to the moon?
Re:Jewish fangs suck the blood from your budget
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 1
"The Jews charge a hidden food tax that costs consumers billions of dollars per year in tribute payed to the Jews. "
Hey, if I have to pay extra for a good kosher hot dog, so be it.
If I have a ham sandwich on a bagel, does that make it OK?
Re:The last vestiges of irrational exuburance!!
on
Mars Odyssey begins
·
· Score: 1
"the chance of a FEMALE obtaining a test score of 124 is EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY than an equivalent male. "
You say these kinds of things about women, and you wonder why you have the time to write such long posts on a Saturday evening...
""Learn from mistakes" and all the other touchy feely swill. "
Because, as we all know, science is all about getting it right the first time...
"NASA is nearly dead, and their irrational bias in hiring quotas is most of the problem. "
Yeah. Only a dead government organization can land a probe on an asteriod. A probe that wasn't designed to land. Marking the first time in history that we (the U. S.) was the first to land on something.
"NASA has hiring policies that try to hire women DESPITE IQ or experience. "
I attend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The majority of my friends have graduated from there with either a degree in aerospace engineering or engineering physics. Most of them now work in the aerospace industry in one form or another, with several working for NASA directly. Not one of them has had to take an IQ test in the hiring process. Federal security clearances, yes, but not IQ tests. IIRC, the last time that IQ tests were used in government positions was before WWI.
"This is a fact! "
And, gosh darn it, if you say it's a fact, then it must be a fact! Empirical evidence and scientific method be damned!
"NASA is proud to boast 2% female active engineers minimum and that is WAY out of wack with societies norms.
The mars missions are even more than 2% female."
Judging from my school's gender ratio of 8:1, there are few women in the aerospace industry. However, the majority of the women that are in the industry seem to be in the engineering fields as opposed to being pilots or airplane mechanics. I'd say the gender ratio in the engineering fields is 3:1 to 4:1 or so. Nowhere near the 49:1 that you are suggesting.
"EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY than an equivalent male."
Erm... if there's an 8x difference, how do you justify the use of the word "equivalent?" Are we comparing to a 24-y.o. male with a doctorate in aerospace engineering to a 24-y.o. female cashier? Sure, they're both the same age, both work in fields where mathematics is important, but...
"The average IQ is the same for both genders 100,"
You mean they try to write the tests so that the average is 100. Well, it would be more correct to say they tried, because this was almost a century ago.
"NASA boasts a female-minority web site documenting how not only are contractors hired by whether or not they are female or black but what state their small companies reside in!"
Launch facilities are in Florida. Can you justify building the rockets in any other state? Do you want all us taxpayers to flip the bill to move SRB's from, say, Alaska or Hawaii?
Engines are tested in Mississippi and Alabama. Do you really think a manufacturer can win a bid if they have to include transportation costs from Michigan? And, if they do, do you really want that engine on your rocket?
""The total launch and development costs of NASA's lost Mars spacecraft is put at $320 million. "
Hmmm... When the number of missions to Mars goes up, the number of failed missions to Mars goes up. Imagine that! I suppose next you're going to point out how the number of air accidents has gone up exponentially since the beginning of the 20th century...
"the recent theme was about how the shuttle is now COMMANDED by a female and the motto was"
I watched that particular launch from Titusville. After several aborted launch attempts due to weather, Col. Collins did just fine getting Discovery into orbit, especially considering the unusual weight of the Chandra X-Ray Telescope.
"were paid tax dollars to periodically
talk about how NASA needs even MORE females and black engineers "
Sending employees out to colleges to recruit future employees. How unusual.
NASA needs more engineers period. Until recently, the question was "Why study engineering when I can make more money with a computer degree?" Opening the field up to more genders/races/whatevers increases their labor pool.
"Lori B. Garver = Associate Administrator for NASA's Office of Policy and Plans, Executive Secretary of Advisory Council (She does not have an engineering degree!) "
You need an engineering degree to work in HR?
"I think male rage-envy sabotage (yes sabotage) is to blame for the many Mars mission losses. "
If men are inclined to do something like that, then they shouldn't be in the program to begin with. It was that kind of pride-before-safety attitude that destroyed Challenger.
Not that you, a white male naturally inclined to higher IQ's, would screw up and counter your own arguments....
Slashdot Mirror
"with an economy 5 times larger than that of the USA by the year 2020. "
That's an awful lot of zeroes there. China's economy is mainly focused on manufacturing ("goods," if you will). If the rest of the world doesn't keep pace to be able to buy Chinese-manufactured goods, then there's no way China can reach such a huge number.
Also, you may be underestimating the gap between the U. S. and the rest of the world. We don't just have the highest gross domestic product in the world, but runners up like Japan and the UK are on-par only with some of the larger states like CA and TX. Most of the rest of the world are lucky if they can keep up with poorer states like WV and MS.
"All it takes is a blip for america to spiral into recession whil China steams ahead."
You're not giving US resiliency and economic strength enough credit. Within a decade or two of the end of the American Revolution, we had the largest merchant fleet in the world. At the end of our Civil War, we had the most powerful army on the globe (but quickly dismantled it). In the midst of the Great Depression, the US was able to help win a war of attrition on two fronts, even after starting late int he game. Even after the end of the Cold War, our economy allows us the luxury of keeping military that can fight a war on two fronts, of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, AND send people into space to boot.
You're also forgetting how much the rest of the world depends on the US economy. The NYSE crashes in 1929, and the whole world has to swallow it. New York has been the main economic center of the world for at least a century. A catostrophic decline like you're speaking of would mean a second Great Depression for the world.
If anything, we'll have a slow and graceful decline/leveling off like the UK has had.
"Many in the world will be wary of this new power, but it is well known that China is a much more outward looking nation that america historically speaking, and far less insular. "
You say this of the "Middle Kingdom," self-declared center of the world? Watch the news sometime, when diplomats on either side are talking. If there's a map of the world behind them, study it. You'll note that the maps shown on the US side set the edges of the map at 180 degrees longitude, putting Europe and Africa right in the middle. In China, on the other hand, they take liberties with it to make sure that China is right in the middle. Highlighted, even.
"It also does not have territorial ambitions, beyond claiming back its old lands, like Taiwan."
I didn't realize that Nepal, the Spratleys, Vietnam, Kashmir, the Russian Far East, etc. were traditionally Chinese.
In comparison, the US has been letting go of land for the past half-century or so. The Panama Canal. The Philippines. Numerous Pacific islands. We've given Puerto Rico the opportunity to leave numerous times with open and fair elections.
"The chinese do not send spyplanes over America",
The Chinese have no access to a Japan-equivalent. Look at where the P-3 was flying out of. I'm quite sure they keep an eye on the various US bases in the area, though, and I doubt the People's Army-Navy wanted access to port facilities in Long Beach just for the convenient location.
And, finally, there's the question of the Chinese military's ability to be a super power. Current analysis shows Taiwan having a military on-par if not stronger than the mainland's (minus the nuclear weapons bit, of course).
I've read a few reports that suggest that China's culture keep it from truly becoming a world power as well. (This was on a private mailing list, so I can't give you a link, but I can cut-and-paste if there are requests). I'll sum up:
First off, the civillian government doesn't trust its military (which may or may not be justified). Because of this, they promote officers on basis of loyalty instead of skill. Reading Chairman Mao's works is more important than reading Sun Tzu's.
Secondly, the Party and other cultural factors provide China with a comparatively rigid class structure. While this may not seem important, here's the analogy that was used:
Even more damning is the way that the lower classes are short-changed come budget time. The Egyptian pilot may be up to US standards (perhaps even trained by the US), but the ground crew sure wouldn't.(I'm not saying that the US has no classes, just that the upper classes are much more prone to listen to sound advice from the lower classes).
"I for one welcome our new leaders to be."
Looking at their past history, if that were to come true, I'd be much more likely to exersize my 2nd Ammendment rights.
This assumes that the pilot was willing to risk a rather expensive airplane (in terms of both money and intelligence) when 23 other people are watching and can (and probably will in all the required paperwork) report to their boss. Driving aggressively is OK as long as it's not your dad's $200,000 Porche. Otherwise, you're in the right lane, hands at 9 and 3, going about 5 under the limit.
"I have heard no mention of the acceptability of the spying mission. "
The plane was using purely passive detectors, picking up photons that were headed their way, anyway. This is 100% legal to do even within the U. S. Why do you think the smart drug dealers have sworn off cell phones?
As you probably know, most male mammals end up fighting with each other for various reasons (turf, women, insulting each others' mothers, whatever), and humans are no exception. However, if all of these fights were to the death, the species would die off pretty quickly, since the number of available males would drop off. So, the males managed to develop a "surrender reflex," where they'll give up when they know they're beaten. He who fights and runs away lives to mate another day.
However, the role of the females are a little different. They have the "protect the young" gene, where fighting to the death is the name of the game. Letting an enemy live allows them to come back and try it again.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us with women more dangerous than men in a fight-or-flight situation.
If you don't believe me, go down to your local club and ask the bouncers there. They'll tell you that in fights, guys tend not to use sharp objects unprovoked, and will cooperate once they know they're beat. The women, though, fight tooth, nail, and spike heel throughout, and even try to get back in to continue the fight with the bouncers.
I've also heard similar tales from border patrol agents. When caught smuggling something, male suspects are more willing to cooperate when they learn they've been caught red-handed, while the women tend to fight on (sometimes literally) until the bitter end.
This doesn't mean that women would make lousy presidents (dealing with crises is only part of the job description, and sometimes "to the death" is more desirable than appeasement), just that women can't solve all the world's problems.
Doubtful. Supersonic jets bring loud engines and louder sonic booms. This means that such a jet will only be able to fly out of a handful of airports, limiting the number of planes that will be sold, which limits the price of seats to the social elite.
"The military aspects are a bit more challenging, though. If you're going to build a bomber so fast it can't be shot down, fine--but then you have to either slow down the craft so that the munitions can exit the slipstream, or you have to come up with some design that will allow you to drop iron at high speeds--such as the Valkyrie, which dropped munitions out the tail."
1.) Spy planes. And I mean real spy planes, not the glorified P-3 Orion that the press has been quick to call a "spy plane" recently. :)
2.) Rapid response time. Sure, it may be an engineering problem of figuring out how to shoot at people or drop bombs on the, but it might be worth it for the 3-4 hour response time to hit just about anybody in the world.
"But this won't replace STS. Yes, a scramjet is nice. Yes, this is similar to rocket-based combined cycle. But we could more cheaply build a reliable, two-stage system to get into orbit."
Wouldn't this be useful as the first stage of a two-stage system?
Nationality isn't so much a problem in communications as culture. Yankees are Yankees, Canuks are Canuks, but that hasn't caused us to shoot at each other for 187 years or so. However, Indians are Hindus and Pakistanis are Muslims, and that DOES give then cause to shoot at each other (which sounds odd to us who sit in a third culture).
So far, I think the current situation is going along as well as can be expected for such vastly different cultures. It might go along more smoothly if the Chinese were more willing to meet us in the middle (we've been saying "accident" since the beginning, and we seem to have more or less written off the plane as a loss, but China's demands are the same as day one), but the Seventh Fleet hasn't blockaded Hainan island, and the crew hasn't been put on trial. About the worst that could happen right now is a big step back to 1990 or so.
Just to be picky, I don't belive the SR-71 has dedicated ramjets. The engines are some sort of bastardization of a ramjet and a turbojet (I want to say "turbo-ramjet") that lets it get up to speeds wehre the ramjet part is efficient.
"Second to none when it comes to macho military posturing, the U.S. can't say it's sorry for the accident and bring everybody home. Various grim-faced U.S. officials, from the President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State, have been rushing around in their big black limos, and issued guarded expressions of concern and sadness, but nobody can quite bring himself to say the magic words. "
Being macho may or may not have something to do with it, but it is not the sole reason, nor even the main reason. If the U. S. were to apologize in the manner that the P. R. C. wants, not only will we be saying "I'm sorry I hit your plane," but also "I'm sorry we flew flights over your water." After all, there shouldn't be any problem in flying such flights through international water.
If the South China Sea isn't international water (which the P. R. C. has been claiming for decades), this leaves a lot of other people wide open to be "collectivized" or "assimilated" or whatever you want to call it. "You see? The U. S. even admits that it's our water, so then they also agree we own the Spratley Islands." (For those that don't know, the Spratleys are a resource-rich area of the world that's been claimed by at least five nations). This could worsen the water disputes between the P. R. C. and Vietnam (two nations that have already been to war once). This could even affect islands as far away from China as the Philippines.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for more information on the complexities of this corner of the world.
The news is focusing on the crew of the airplane, and maybe on the airplane's technology, but the big issue between the politicians is really the water the plane was flying over. If this were in the Yellow Sea (between the Korean penninsula and mainland China), this wouldn't be anywhere near as big an issue.
If you feel that we should say those "magic words" and more or less abandon that part of the world to a known oppressive and expansionist government (who's to say that they'll stop at the South China Sea? They haven't stopped with Nepal, Kashmir, Taiwan, Vietnam, and it took the Soviet nuclear arsenal to convince them not to spread north as well), then you can go ahead and play the isolationlist game. Just remember that that's exactly what the U. S. was doing at the beginning of both world wars.
Analogy time.
You can walk into Wal-Mart whenever you want. They don't ask for your name, card you at the door, require membership, and so on. However, it doesn't mean that the graffiti you paint on their walls is covered by free speech. Nor does it mean that harassing their customers also counts as free speech.
"Thats one the problems a company should address with a diclaimer in order to not fall into the legal handlings of someone claiming dire crimes against them. People should know, when your on the Internet, especially exchanging during a forum, your not going to find that everyone is Sally fucking Jo Homemaker with etiquette."
That sounds like the "She should have known she was asking for it with that 'outfit' she had on!" defense in a rape trial.
"The problem I see, is that not much was done by those who had their information posted, to hide their information in the first place. Don't they know what privacy is, or was it until someone bitched about it, they turned and said, "Oh my maybe I should not have made my login name maryjosuefrom21mainstreetbirminghamalabama@someshi t.com""
So if I don't lock my car, it's not really grand theft auto any more? If I'm not wearing a gun, it's not a mugging? How far are you willing to carry this logic?
As much as I dislike any political rhetoric, I have to admit that that sounds stereotypically liberal. "It wasn't my fault!"
"The problems with the Internet and legal related issues, is that many of the laws are so broad, theres no way to detail what exactly constitutes a crime."
This is what courts are for.
"I think I'm gonna sue Slashdot if anyone clinks this link. Since by getting slashdotted afterwards, its Slashdot's fault for allowing this to happen."
You'd only have a case if /. said "Everyone click on this link at least twenty times so that we can crash it. And then we can do the same thing in an hour."
Then you can call it "illegal search and siezure." You'll be in jail for a while until a lawyer gets their hands on the cash cow that you are, and then you can sue for damages and then some. On the other hand, if Microsoft finds something they don't like (anything that violates their liscencing agreements), you still go to jail, but can't complain about how they found that information. You DID click "I agree" when you first installed Windows XP, after all. Actually, you can't complain period if they have their way with UCITA.
And, last but not least, we're sorry that your wounded pride prevents you from looking at the situation objectively and keeping a cool head.
But we're not sorry that your fighters were flying dangerously close to our plane, causing an ACCIDENT. The U. S. wouldn't purposefully put their surveillance equipment in jeopardy, and, unless the Chinese government lives up to its reputation, the F-8 pilots probably weren't ordered to collide with our plane, either.
Of course, if saving face after a disaster is more imporant to you than continued participation in trade with the rest of the world, and more important than pissing off one of Taiwan's main arms suppliers, that's your problem, not mine. Then again, if the People's Republic were more level-headed, Taiwan probably wouldn't need to buy arms from the U. S. to begin with.
And get your damned propoganda spam back on topic.
The NSA has to worry about the GAO breathing down their necks and the CIA, DIA, and FBI competing with them in some things. Microsoft is a monopoly. Who's going to be the one to worry more about the end-user?
Why? Not having their operating systems classified as secure by the NSA has yet to stop them from intimating that it does.
You mean it's taken this long for them to ADMIT they've gotten here. There's no reason not to believe that the NSA has been using Linux for years and has only come forward with thier implementation of it after Windows' risks to national security has reached a certain threshold.
If the NSA has to be working with an operating system, I'd prefer it to be Linux. Even if they were to put in back doors, at least the users have the legal right to look at the source code and try to find it and fix it. And I can almost guarentee that anything that has the NSA stamp of approval on it will be rigorously tested by the community, if for no other reason than because it says "NSA" on it.
... who approached who first. PGP going to NSA, or vice versa?
That's an interesting accusation. I had Win2KPro installed in order to use it to get an MCSE (mortgaging my soul to Microsoft for money to pay for college with). I am now an MCP with Win2KPro. According to Microsoft's rhetoric, I should be quite adept at getting it configured correctly. But it's still more unstable than my previous Linux installation(s).
"Don't execute the crew" should go without saying. That would be a real good way to start a war.
Thank God we have lawyers in the U. S. that can cry "unreasonable search and siesure..."
We're sorry your pilot was a fucking idiot.
Signed,
The United States
Let's see... The Loch Ness Monster can't be proven to exist. At the same time, without draining the lake and having a look-see once and for all, the existance of the monster can't be disproven, either. If you can't prove or disprove something, it's not in the realm of science.
The process referred to as "cold fusion" produces excess heat in a reproducible reaction, and cannot be accounted for by any known processes. It can be proven to exist (or not to exist, if somebody offered a plausible explaination instead of whining about the Loch Ness Monster and what-not). Therefore, it's science.
Any questions?
"This idea that there is almost a conspiracy of scientists who are so involved in the existing paradigm that they deny our wonderful new trailblazers their proper due is a common trope of almost all pseudoscience."
So is generalization. By your logic...
Flying is a trait of almost all birds.
Bats can fly
Therefore, a bat is a bird
Emus can't fly
Therefore, an emu is not a bird
Of course, this is all besides the point, because assumptions and science shouldn't mix.
"The book being reviewed here is no different than any number of similar books you can find defending any number of pseudoscientific theories. "
I've seen some works of pseudoscience. They rarely have references, or, if they do, tend to reference to bogus works, works by the same author or publisher, or non-scientific works (like, say, the Bible).
Also, they tend not to have forwards written by Arthur C. Clarke, but that's besides the point.
"and, as one person pointed out, clearly was not any form of fusion"
So, if I mistakenly name it wrong, it doesn't exist. Got it.
Maybe it's not fusion. Maybe it's something different. Whatever it is, there is more heat than modern physics and thermodynamics seem to allow. But, because they decided to call it "cold fusion," it must be bogus, hm?
"millions of dollars was spent trying to replicate these experiments, "
Money != success. The N1 program cost the Soviet Union an arm and a leg, and yet their launch success rate was 0:5. Did they fail because it wasn't possible to build a rocket to get to the moon?
Hey, if I have to pay extra for a good kosher hot dog, so be it.
If I have a ham sandwich on a bagel, does that make it OK?
You say these kinds of things about women, and you wonder why you have the time to write such long posts on a Saturday evening...
""Learn from mistakes" and all the other touchy feely swill. "
Because, as we all know, science is all about getting it right the first time...
"NASA is nearly dead, and their irrational bias in hiring quotas is most of the problem. "
Yeah. Only a dead government organization can land a probe on an asteriod. A probe that wasn't designed to land. Marking the first time in history that we (the U. S.) was the first to land on something.
"NASA has hiring policies that try to hire women DESPITE IQ or experience. "
I attend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The majority of my friends have graduated from there with either a degree in aerospace engineering or engineering physics. Most of them now work in the aerospace industry in one form or another, with several working for NASA directly. Not one of them has had to take an IQ test in the hiring process. Federal security clearances, yes, but not IQ tests. IIRC, the last time that IQ tests were used in government positions was before WWI.
"This is a fact! "
And, gosh darn it, if you say it's a fact, then it must be a fact! Empirical evidence and scientific method be damned!
"NASA is proud to boast 2% female active engineers minimum and that is WAY out of wack with societies norms. The mars missions are even more than 2% female."
Judging from my school's gender ratio of 8:1, there are few women in the aerospace industry. However, the majority of the women that are in the industry seem to be in the engineering fields as opposed to being pilots or airplane mechanics. I'd say the gender ratio in the engineering fields is 3:1 to 4:1 or so. Nowhere near the 49:1 that you are suggesting.
"EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY than an equivalent male."
Erm... if there's an 8x difference, how do you justify the use of the word "equivalent?" Are we comparing to a 24-y.o. male with a doctorate in aerospace engineering to a 24-y.o. female cashier? Sure, they're both the same age, both work in fields where mathematics is important, but...
"The average IQ is the same for both genders 100,"
You mean they try to write the tests so that the average is 100. Well, it would be more correct to say they tried, because this was almost a century ago.
"NASA boasts a female-minority web site documenting how not only are contractors hired by whether or not they are female or black but what state their small companies reside in!"
Launch facilities are in Florida. Can you justify building the rockets in any other state? Do you want all us taxpayers to flip the bill to move SRB's from, say, Alaska or Hawaii?
Engines are tested in Mississippi and Alabama. Do you really think a manufacturer can win a bid if they have to include transportation costs from Michigan? And, if they do, do you really want that engine on your rocket?
""The total launch and development costs of NASA's lost Mars spacecraft is put at $320 million. "
Hmmm... When the number of missions to Mars goes up, the number of failed missions to Mars goes up. Imagine that! I suppose next you're going to point out how the number of air accidents has gone up exponentially since the beginning of the 20th century...
"the recent theme was about how the shuttle is now COMMANDED by a female and the motto was"
I watched that particular launch from Titusville. After several aborted launch attempts due to weather, Col. Collins did just fine getting Discovery into orbit, especially considering the unusual weight of the Chandra X-Ray Telescope.
"were paid tax dollars to periodically talk about how NASA needs even MORE females and black engineers "
Sending employees out to colleges to recruit future employees. How unusual.
NASA needs more engineers period. Until recently, the question was "Why study engineering when I can make more money with a computer degree?" Opening the field up to more genders/races/whatevers increases their labor pool.
"Lori B. Garver = Associate Administrator for NASA's Office of Policy and Plans, Executive Secretary of Advisory Council (She does not have an engineering degree!) "
You need an engineering degree to work in HR?
"I think male rage-envy sabotage (yes sabotage) is to blame for the many Mars mission losses. "
If men are inclined to do something like that, then they shouldn't be in the program to begin with. It was that kind of pride-before-safety attitude that destroyed Challenger.
Not that you, a white male naturally inclined to higher IQ's, would screw up and counter your own arguments....
First, he got rear-ended. Then, when he got out of the car to inspect the damage, another car comes along and gets him.
An RJ45 port in the closet... If that's not a dream home, I don't know what is! :)
Hey, that's not true! I'm downloading ROMs and warez too! :)