Under these conditions terrain-following radar is a necessity, since a human pilot cannot react quickly enough to changing terrain heights
While the machine could give a very harsh ride attempting to maintain a constant very low altitude when in TFR mode, I would debate the validity of this statement. The difference in bunting down at minus 2 G's and something less is fairly minimal in the time to return to a constant altitude, and at anything less than the harshest setting the pilot can hand fly the procedure (though it can be tiring after a while). Additionally, as the wikipedia article alluded to, the machine was not capable of deciding to trade a momentary exposure on one side of a crest for less exposure on the other side, where the threat might be much greater.
Once upon a time, our elected official were people who had built their own businesses - people who knew how hard it sometimes was to make payroll - and people who knwe how hard it occasionally was to be unable to make payroll. We had laws that encouraged growth, which requires someone, somewhere to voluntarily invest something, whether it be his own time or someone else's discretionary nickel. When something worked it was praised, encouraged, duplicated and expanded, and when something didn't, it was simply discarded. Today, our electees are basically all lawyers - and we have an economy in meltdown, archaic business efforts are kept around, and even subsidized because it buys votes, and we have a financial system where one can do better with destruction rather than construction. One wonders at correlation...
people still manage to feed, clothe and house themselves far better in a market like ours where there's a plethora of consumer advertising, than in a planned economy where nearly all advertising is government propaganda
substitute "unbiased news" for " goverment advertising" and we appear to be on a path to test your theory
Dude - they get paid exactly what they are able to demand to be paid. If "other engineers" are just as competent, then they are free in the US (at least for the moment, but for how long would make a good bet) to pursue their own definition of success.
So, someone creates a financial instrument, say one which which gathers risk together and resells it - meaning the risk is no longer standing alone in disparate locations, and someone else thinks the purchase of that risk is a profitable endeavor, meaning the risk has been reduced for one party and assumed by another party... and here's the kicker... it's all voluntarily done... and yet you see no benefit to the economy by someone willing to assume another's risk. In your world, I guess a farmer, who may have little else, would need to bet the farm every time he planted a crop, because no one else, say someone with the financial means to do so, would be allowed to purchase some portion of his risk - and you believe that would be a benefit to the economy.
I'll start believing the editors of the new york times are competent at military analysis shortly after I believe the editors at the new york times are competent at running a profitable newspaper
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Letterman - is that you? You're already in trouble, dude ...
The only difference is that the pilot has extra ways to screw up
... regardless that they seem to be greatly underappreciated in some circles.
The pilot also has a brain
Under these conditions terrain-following radar is a necessity, since a human pilot cannot react quickly enough to changing terrain heights
While the machine could give a very harsh ride attempting to maintain a constant very low altitude when in TFR mode, I would debate the validity of this statement. The difference in bunting down at minus 2 G's and something less is fairly minimal in the time to return to a constant altitude, and at anything less than the harshest setting the pilot can hand fly the procedure (though it can be tiring after a while). Additionally, as the wikipedia article alluded to, the machine was not capable of deciding to trade a momentary exposure on one side of a crest for less exposure on the other side, where the threat might be much greater.
[insert government program] ... is not a tax but a government agency
there's a difference?
Once upon a time, our elected official were people who had built their own businesses - people who knew how hard it sometimes was to make payroll - and people who knwe how hard it occasionally was to be unable to make payroll. We had laws that encouraged growth, which requires someone, somewhere to voluntarily invest something, whether it be his own time or someone else's discretionary nickel. When something worked it was praised, encouraged, duplicated and expanded, and when something didn't, it was simply discarded. Today, our electees are basically all lawyers - and we have an economy in meltdown, archaic business efforts are kept around, and even subsidized because it buys votes, and we have a financial system where one can do better with destruction rather than construction. One wonders at correlation ...
the problem is not excessive private debt - the problem is private debt being made public debt
people still manage to feed, clothe and house themselves far better in a market like ours where there's a plethora of consumer advertising, than in a planned economy where nearly all advertising is government propaganda
substitute "unbiased news" for " goverment advertising" and we appear to be on a path to test your theory
Dude - they get paid exactly what they are able to demand to be paid. If "other engineers" are just as competent, then they are free in the US (at least for the moment, but for how long would make a good bet) to pursue their own definition of success.
So, someone creates a financial instrument, say one which which gathers risk together and resells it - meaning the risk is no longer standing alone in disparate locations, and someone else thinks the purchase of that risk is a profitable endeavor, meaning the risk has been reduced for one party and assumed by another party ... and here's the kicker ... it's all voluntarily done ... and yet you see no benefit to the economy by someone willing to assume another's risk. In your world, I guess a farmer, who may have little else, would need to bet the farm every time he planted a crop, because no one else, say someone with the financial means to do so, would be allowed to purchase some portion of his risk - and you believe that would be a benefit to the economy.
sounds rather spotty ...
so ... the question is ... a maryannbot or a gingerbot?
At least one of the professions is, ah, up front about what you're ah, getting for your money ...
The "channel" technique makes me think of Occam.
A bad peace.
And your source for this is three commercial t-shirt sites, sites with no actual ties to the army?
...
And the best part is it gets modded insightful around here
By not pissing away money on other things.
The Air Force began the project in 2005 and finished installing the new configuration on systems in 2007
... and I usually only need a dozen reboots or so to get a copy of XP installed ...
Wow
The strength of capitalism has steadily declined ever since our Congress issued themselves a checkbook.
In what way would this be a leap forward?
Well, at least a computer program will bother to RTFA.
The question in the summary is a bit stupid IMHO.
You must be new here.
I'll start believing the editors of the new york times are competent at military analysis shortly after I believe the editors at the new york times are competent at running a profitable newspaper
Still don't wanna see the Chi-Coms coming at me in one of those.
... we'll send our secret fleet back at 'em
No worries
yeah, that would be trivial to administer ...
You have any right you can successfully defend - all else is delusion.
you're as fucking immature and dumb as when you turned 13, you stupid goddamn asshole.
Dad?