I agree with you about restarting the production lines of the F-22, but I can't disagree enough regarding exports. The F-22 represents 20+ years of the best R&D money can buy. Every part of that plane is filled with advanced tools that make it the most lethal air-to-air combat machine in the history of the world. I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't even as-yet be admitting the thing exists, let alone showing it off at airshows. While we don't have the complete picture, there's been enough public information leaked about the plane that even amateur fighter junkies have a fairly solid understanding of its capabilities. That means intelligence agencies and foreign militaries likely have an even better understanding of it. Does that mean they can then field planes to challenge it? Not in the next 20 years; no. At least not without pouring hundreds of billions into R&D in a massively accelerated program.
What would allow them to jump ahead in the R&D process cheaply? Getting in the cockpit, getting trained maintenance crew members to turn, etc. In the US, we have a massive counter-intelligence infrastructure capable of limiting that kind of risk. Not eliminating it, but minimizing it. If we start shipping this aircraft to other nations (even our best allies), we open the door to a Russia or a China to get their hands on exactly what they need to build an almost-as-good fighter in half the time. They'll not only use them to deter the US from threatening their interests around the world (because realistically, we aren't attacking each other directly, but countries like Georgia and Taiwan provide perfect examples of where this would come into play), but they'd also sell them to a lot of countries who would be happy to challenge the US directly (like Iran, North Korea, etc). That's just far, far too much of a risk to take.
The US military is counting on the F-22 (with upgrades along the way) to completely dominate the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 20-30 years. If someone else gets their hands on enough information to cut their R&D time and expense in half and build something that's nearly as capable, we've lost a massive air advantage. You cannot win a modern war militarily without control of the air. Right now, the F-22 gives us that hands-down. With the F-22, no country on Earth could field aircraft in any skies on Earth; including over their own soil. You really cannot underestimate what kind of deterrent that is to those who'd like to see our power balanced or who would like to take by force those who we protect.
So yes, the production line should be started by taking all future monies out of the F-35 program, but with one change: the entire production process should be completely overhauled to streamline it. When the F-22 production was begun, a political calculation was made to spread the program to as many states and districts as possible so that most politicians in Congress would have to choose between voting to fund the project and cutting off money and jobs to their own constituents. That drove up the cost of building the plane significantly (I've seen figures as high as $30 million per plane). By consolidating and streamlining the process, we'll be able to build many more F-22s with a lot less money.
I'd also note that it would be a huge mistake to try and add any significant ground attack capability to the plane. Our most successful aircraft do one job and do it well. The F-15 rules the skies. It does so wherever it goes and it's done beautifully. It kills planes. It's not great at doing a ton of ground attacking, but it doesn't need to. We have bombers hitting bombable targets and for moving targets we have another hugely specialized aircraft: the A-10. The A-10 is the pinnacle of anti-vehicle attack aircraft. You'd never fly A-10s in against enemy aircraft because that's not its job. The F-15s clear the skies and the A-10s clear the mobile ground targets. The F-22 should be a simple drop-in replacement for the aging F-15. The A-10 still does a f
I completely agree with you here, and that's really the design philosophy behind the F-22. Without upgrades, it'd destroy any fighter on any drawing board anywhere in the world today. Realistically, that means anything being flown in production in the next 20+ years. With upgrades, it'll do that for a lot longer. It doesn't need to hit ships and tanks and SAM sites; it need only clear the skies of enemy aircraft. If it does that, then it's done its job and we own the sky.
Owning the sky doesn't guarantee victory, but not owning them guarantees that you won't win militarily.
I don't doubt this report. However, my understanding is that the point of F-22 is to conduct its engagements at long-range and avoid these close-range knife fights. If the threat gets to dog-fighting range, the F-22s have screwed up and lost their greatest advantages.
I certainly do doubt it. First of all, the F-22 has fought in many, many mock combat situations against the best pilots in the USAF and the Navy flying the F/A-18, F-15e, etc. When results are reported through reputable sources, the F-22 typically is said to get somewhere between 15:1 and n:0 kills:losses. In direct combat, they never begin beyond visual range as it's considered a waste of time. They've tried that and every plane that did it went down against the F-22 before they could do anything. Then they started them within visual range, but even then almost no one could get/stay behind the F-22s. Most reports indicate pilots either can't get or can't maintain a stable lock in any kind of reliable fashion even with the F-22 sitting plainly in front of them. In full red vs blue exercises, the F-22s primarily act as local AWACS and target pre-planned enemies. Having them act within their typical role of full-on air dominance fighters would just be a waste of time and gas.
So on the one hand, we have a dozen or more reports of exercises and full-on productions wherein the best pilots in the world flying the best planes in the world (including the battle-tested F-15e, which has NEVER been shot down in combat) with the best avionics in the world can barely manage to do any locking even when they vastly outnumber the F-22 and start in the most advantageous position possible, and on the other, we have some guy with an obvious axe to grind (the ridiculously inflated cost figures and flippant remarks about the aircraft's safety/reliability) writing an article for Wired who's quoting some magazine article that isn't even linked telling us "This key piece of gear allows pilots in other planes — including the German Typhoon — to lock missiles onto a target merely by looking at it. “We had a Raptor salad for lunch,” one German pilot quipped after using his jet’s helmet sight and maneuverability to get the best of an F-22 over Alaska."
So we're to believe that the F-15e with its advanced avionics and best-in-the-world pilots who've seen actual combat around the world gets absolutely slaughtered, but some German pilots just waltz up to the F-22, follow it around with ease, and then take a good look at it when they're ready to blow it up?
Please. The author shows his bias throughout the "article" which is actually just a re-hash of a magazine article he read and decided to "report" on for Wired once he applied his own spin. I don't see any actual numbers from this, but according to this article: http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123307285 the F-22s cleared all enemy aircraft from the sky. They talked about difficulties too; such as the language barriers between allied pilots. Until I see something other than some magazine article (as in, some kind of official or at least solid source), it's somebody's fantasy put to paper and regurgitated by those who either have an axe to grind (anti-war folks) or who just want ratings/readers. I don't doubt that some pilots talked some smack, but reporting that as if it has any meaning is terribly misleading at best.
How can one wait for a car that came out 4 years ago? The Tesla Roadster had a 244 mile range and is all-electric. The Tesla Model S (which began shipping this year) has up to a 300 mile range on the top end battery option.
The pricing is a bit higher for now, but it's coming down very fast and they're aiming for $30,000 on the next generation. That said, the 200-mile all electric car is a few years old now and they work great.
2008 - The Tesla Roadster is a $110,000 (base price) sports car with a 244 mile range. 2012 - The Tesla Model S is a $57,000 - $77,000 (base price) sedan with 160 - 300 mile range. 2015 (estimated) - Tesla Gen III Sedans are targeting $30,000 base price with comparable Model S ranges.
In addition, Tesla is rolling out a "supercharge" network to support changing away from home in convenient locations in target markets. The Model S has also been promised to include a 5-minute battery quick change option. Once that is available at (for instance) gas stations, it'll take as much time to refill your electric as it does to refill your gas car, except it'll cost a whole lot less.
This guy is actually delivering functioning, functional electric cars and building the infrastructure to support them. I wouldn't bet against him; everyone who's done that so far has been proven wrong repeatedly.
Our property crime rates roughly equal UK violent crime rates. Our violent crime rate is about 1/5 of their's.
So yes, the guns may not be keeping my TV from getting stolen while I'm on vacation, but they keep me from getting stabbed over my wallet and cell phone.
In the vast majority of the United States, it is legal to own and carry firearms.
In Kennesaw, GA, it's required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law) and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country (http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html).
UK: 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html) US: 404 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime)
Handguns are banned outright in my country, including (almost the entirety of) the police, and most people, including said police (who ARE regularly ballotted), WANT it that way.
If most people WANT to enslave black people, does that make it right? Both you and we did that for a long time. The majority (who were regularly ballotted), WANTED it that way. If most people WANT to take away women's voting rights, does that make it right? Both you and we did that for a long time. The majority (who were regularly ballotted), WANTED it that way.
Stripping people of their basic human rights cannot be rightfully done by majority vote. Sure it can be done through threat of force and violence (such as armed police/paramilitary troops raiding your home and hauling you off to prison at gunpoint), but no amount of force can make it right. It doesn't matter how many people vote or how many people are arrested; basic human rights still exist. Among those is the right to self defense and the tools necessary to make that right have actual meaning.
Oddly, we also have far less shooting massacres than you bloody Septics. Funny how those seem to be related, isn't it?
Less shootings? Absolutely. Less violent crime? Not by a long shot.
UK: 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html) US: 404 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime)
Worst city in the US: Memphis with 1,007 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6)
Wake me up when your gun/self-defense free country stops being the violence capital of the western world.
That would be out in the UK, but hitting the fucker is not, assuming that you are not dealing with a small kid. But the likelihood is the person doing the mugging is bigger than the person being mugged. So is your phone worth being beaten up or stabbed for?
No, but either of those things may happen either way. Hence why you shoot them. If someone simply demands your wallet, you chuckle and continue walking. If they threaten you with bodily harm, respond appropriately and with deadly force if necessary. This is the right of every human being regardless of where they live.
You can defend yourself, just not with a gun.
So "you can do x, you simply can't have any of the tools necessary to do x"? That makes no sense. It's like saying "you can change out a flat on the highway, just not with a tire that's inflated." It's a Non Sequitur. If you have the right to defend yourself (and you do, all human beings do), then you have the right to use the tools necessary to do so. How does an 80 year old 90lb woman keep from getting mugged/robbed/beaten/raped/murdered by a 6'3" 250lb criminal? She pulls out a 9mm, aims, and fires. A gun is a tool that equalizes any confrontation. The worst the other guy can have is a gun. The most you can have is a gun. Ergo, if you have a gun, your worst-case scenario is that you're now on equal footing with your assailant. This is an incredible tool.
This is democracy, the majority don't want liberal gun ownership so we don't have it.
It's two wolves and a hen voting on what's for dinner; that's what it is. You can't take away someone's intrinsic rights by voting. The majority can't vote all women into slavery and have it be right. The majority can't vote all blacks into slavery and have it be right. The majority can't vote that we kill all people over age 65 and have it be right. The majority can't vote that homosexuals will all be rounded up and chemically castrated and have it be right. The majority can't vote that blacks and whites must use separate bathrooms and have it be right. And the majority can't vote that human beings may have no legal access to the tools necessary to defend themselves from violent criminals and have it be right.
All people have the right to self-defense. Therefore, all people have the right to keep and use the tools necessary for that right to have any appreciable meaning. As such, no vote by any majority can rightfully take those tools away.
If your government allows human rights to be stripped by majority vote, your government is broken. Get yourself a new government.
Muggings happen all the time, the police have long since given up any shred of investigation since the punishment is almost non-existent providing no firearms are used or the victim does not need hospital treatment. The last time I as mugged I didn't even bother reporting it, who needs the hassle.
If you want to make sure the police investigate you need to resist and get stabbed or something. If it is just a straight mugging with no violence (just the threat) then the punishment would be a fine or community order anyway even if they investigated
If there's no violence, how about walking away? And if there is, shoot the fucker. Self defense isn't a crime. If your government tells you that you can't defend yourself, get yourself a new government.
This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.
Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and that it was heavily encouraged by both President Clinton and (far moreso) by President George W. Bush via Housing and Urban Development.
Further, I kinda figured that several years of practically free money flowing from the quasi-government entity known as the Federal Reserve fueled all kinds of terrible investments (like a housing bubble?). And you know, I didn't think it was helpful that a pair of government-sponsored entities (who were under the direction of the US Congress, had the implicit backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, and who've been taken into conservatorship by the US Federal government) kept prices and rates artificially low at great cost to the US taxpayer and who - together - account for about 60% of the US mortgage market. Doesn't that sort of thing usually spawn... a bubble?
Not really sure what led me to believe all of that stuff. Does the narrative even make sense? Congress changes an existing law and the President changes enforcement to pressure those who give mortgages to hand out more loans to the "economically disadvantaged" in their communities in the mid-1990s which causes lenders to put a ton of loans on their books that don't look very good? I mean, I guess the banks and such would already be lending to people who were qualified for loans; there's no reason not to, right? If you're qualified, the bank makes money through the life of the loan, you get a house, and everybody wins, yeah? So I suppose if Congress had to force banks to make a bunch of loans, it'd probably mean that those loans weren't so great. Now from what I know of banks, they've got to answer to the bean counters and stock holders and all sorts of other people who get fussy when the books start looking scary. I guess if that started to happen, "the government made me do it" probably wouldn't cut it for very long. So on the one side, you've got the government pressuring the lenders to create loans they wouldn't normally create, and on the other hand, you've got people who are like "hey, if you go out of business, I lose a lot of money, so don't do that!" After a little while of that and not seeing things get any better, I know I'd be looking for another way out. Which is interesting, because the US government invented a neat way to get loans off your books back in 1970 with what are called "Mortgage-backed securities" (courtesy of Ginnie Mae). More than half the mortgages in the US have been turned into those, (including $3 Trillion worth in 2003 alone in a $12 Trillion total market) so that's pretty neat.
Ok, so the lenders have a good way move the bad loans off their books, and by all accounts, they start doing just that. By 2002, President Bush was
Irrelevant to the constitutionality and properness of the law itself. If an officer is abusing power or behaving inappropriately, the answer isn't to blame a perfectly legitimate law, but to punish/retrain the officer(s) as needed.
Ahh but you said they couldn't be checked unless they had already been stopped for a crime.
Correct.
So if you already have a reason to hold someone why would you have to check out their papers to see if you have an excuse to hold them?
Why would police officers want to know if someone they've detained or arrested for a crime isn't even supposed to be in the country in the first place? Is that a serious question? Checking the immigration status isn't looking for "an excuse to hold them". Checking immigration status is screening for people who have illegally entered this country in violation of Federal law so they can be deported. The purpose of law enforcement is enforcement of the law. The law says that persons found to be in the country illegally are removed from the country and barred from re-entry.
And the answer is no, the feds don't want the individual in question held. As far as I can tell what they want is everyone involved with SB1070 to go @%$@$% themselves.
Actually, the current policy of the Obama Administration is that persons who've been convicted of a serious crime are at the front of the line for deportation. If/when Arizona law enforcement phones up the Feds and tells them they're holding Fred Smith, and the Feds find out Fred Smith has been convicted of molesting little girls or murdering people, they'll respond back with a "hold" so they can come right down and get Fred on his way back to his country of origin ASAP after he's paid for his crimes here.
We live in the real world. In the real world, even people with very different opinions have common ground. Virtually no one believes that a murderer or child molester who's entered this country illegally should escape punishment and deportation. Further, it's a political impossibility for the Obama administration (or any administration for that matter) to order the release of an illegal alien who's killing American citizens and molesting their children.
Okay got it, it's like letting the police search you without a warrant because you have nothing to hide and if you have nothing to hide you don't need the 4'th amendment.
You always have the option to allow the police to search you without a warrant. If the police ask to search your car, you can choose to allow them to do so (which will make things go quickly) or you can refuse the search and take the risk that they'll hold you there until proper procedures can be followed in your state for a search without consent. It's up to you.
For what purpose could the local police possibly need information about immigration status? To obtain counselor services for a foreign national? They certainly don't have the power to deport anyone.
For the purpose of enforcing the state law which mandates they do so and report suspected illegal aliens to Federal immigration authorities so the Feds can tell them whether or not to hold the individual in question so the Feds can come get them.
It isn't based on suspicion; it's based on reasonable suspicion, which is a legal term with very specific requirements. Further, it's a suspicion which cannot (per the text of the law) have a basis in race or ethnicity.
There's no law requiring you to carry ID. Why would you want to give it to police? Perhaps to end the encounter quickly and easily? You can make the encounter longer and more confrontational than necessary if you like, but you should know that most states and most courts give police fairly wide discretion in terms of Terry stops and stops in general. The purpose of the stop is to identify you and investigate what you're doing. You may believe that's none of the business of the state or the police, but that isn't how the laws are written. You may not like it, but it's been upheld time and time again. If you don't like it, do something about it at a level that matters; like the state legislature, the state governorship, and non-profits that work to push the balance of such encounters back in the favor of ordinary citizens.
Now back to the Arizona law. The ID section has NOTHING to do with any requirement to carry ID or "papers". It's a fail-safe that Federal immigration enforcement law lacks which is designed to help US citizens end any questions about their immigration status quickly and easily. Further, the Arizona law doesn't allow such questions to be raised until you've already been detained or arrested for something else. An actual detention (not a simple stop) has its own legal requirements before it can happen. Even then, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person being detained or arrested is in the country illegally before the immigration status questions can begin. And even then, any Federal, state, or local government identification document that requires proof of legal US residence for issuance is an automatic end to any questions of immigration status.
That's what's in the law. Read it; it's simple and direct.
If the laws of the United States are too much of a hassle to follow, don't come. Instead, lobby your country of origin's government to ask the United States for easier requirements. The correct response is not to violate US Federal law because it's just too much trouble to comply.
I don't thinkyou read the post before. Hw was replying to someone who stated that a driving license is not proof of residency. The guy replied by quoting AZ law which states that an AZ driver license is counted as proof. Well, that doesn't really matter since most CITIZENS don't have an AZ license. Nor do they have any requirement to carry anything else when driving in AZ.
Actually, I replied quoting Arizona law which states that any Federal, state, or local government identification document which requires proof of legal US residence for issuance proves legal residence for the purposes of the Arizona law and ends any and all questions as to the individual's immigration status. Most citizens do have such a document. All have one available to them. You're not required to carry it with you, but if you're detained or arrested for a crime in Arizona and the police have a reasonable suspicion that you're here illegally, such a document is the fastest and easiest way to end that suspicion.
The New Mexico drivers license meets the Arizona requirements for identification and for legally exercising the driving privilege. It does not meet the requirements for proving legal US residence because that license's issuance does not require such proof to be provided as a prerequisite.
Where in the constitution does it say that US citizens have to register with Arizon in order not to be illegally hassled by racists on the way through?
Right next to the spot where it says that people who are ignorant about the purpose and content of state laws have to respond like complete dicks on Slashdot instead of having a reasoned debate. If you'd like to talk about the content of the law or the wisdom of the policy, that's fine. You don't want to do that. You want to sputter out nonsense about racism and the US Constitution with little understanding of either.
What if you're oh, I don't know, New Mexican and Hispanic (like the majority in NM)? It's not like the states are next door to one another or anything.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
Look, no proof of legal residence in the US required:
You can be entirelly legally driving in AZ without any kind of proof of valid residency, and it's not even especially likely to be the case.
Indeed you can be perfectly legally driving through the state of Arizona without any kind of proof of valid residency. This law doesn't affect that. This law merely states that if you are already detained or arrested for another crime, AND police have a reasonable suspicion not based on race or ethnicity that you're in the country illegally, they must inquire as to your immigration status. Worst case scenario, they take your ID, forward the information to Federal immigration authorities through the existing process, and receive a hold/no-hold from them.
There is no requirement that you carry a particular ID or type of ID while in Arizona. The ID section is a fail-safe for US citizens designed to ensure that the vast majority of American citizens can quickly and easily end all questions surrounding their immigration status under this law. It's an extra protection built into this law which does not exist in Federal law. A US citizen can be stopped, detained, arrested, and held for a significant amount of time by Federal immigration authorities. They don't care what ID you have; they don't have to stop the questioning. The Arizona police cannot question your immigration status any further if you present any government ID whose issuance required proof of residence as a prerequisite.
flailing her little Kermit arms Classic invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument.
No, it's a well-placed quip mocking exactly the kind of hysterical nonsense you've displayed in your own comments. I have a perfectly logical argument backed by actual text from the law itself. You have hysterical ranting and emotionally charged words glued into poorly formed sentences with misspelled state names. Care to debate the facts of the situation without the hysteria? I'm ready when you are.
You're violating FEDERAL law. Up until now, that was no business of your local or state beat cop. Which is why they tried to make it a state crime, which would have eliminated the federal angle altogether, but that was shut down hard. I just don't see how the "papers please" rule can be enforced without the prohibited racial profiling. Typically, cops just ask everybody to avoid that charge, but the law requires "reasonable suspicion". So how do you become "reasonably suspicious" towards enough whites with baseball cap driving a pickup to justify asking all the hispanics with the same looks?
*cop pulls over speeder* *speeder speaks little or no English (doesn't matter what language he does speak)* *speeder has no license* *speeder has no identification that proves residency per the Arizona law* *speeder seems unusually nervous for someone dealing with simple speeding infraction*
"Excuse me, sir, are you in the United States illegally?"
Nothing in the above is specific to any race. Whether a hispanic-looking man or a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedish bombshell, it applies quite equally. That took about 30 seconds of thinking to come up with. Smarter people than I can come up with another 50 ideas, many of them a lot better than what I've listed.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you about restarting the production lines of the F-22, but I can't disagree enough regarding exports. The F-22 represents 20+ years of the best R&D money can buy. Every part of that plane is filled with advanced tools that make it the most lethal air-to-air combat machine in the history of the world. I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't even as-yet be admitting the thing exists, let alone showing it off at airshows. While we don't have the complete picture, there's been enough public information leaked about the plane that even amateur fighter junkies have a fairly solid understanding of its capabilities. That means intelligence agencies and foreign militaries likely have an even better understanding of it. Does that mean they can then field planes to challenge it? Not in the next 20 years; no. At least not without pouring hundreds of billions into R&D in a massively accelerated program.
What would allow them to jump ahead in the R&D process cheaply? Getting in the cockpit, getting trained maintenance crew members to turn, etc. In the US, we have a massive counter-intelligence infrastructure capable of limiting that kind of risk. Not eliminating it, but minimizing it. If we start shipping this aircraft to other nations (even our best allies), we open the door to a Russia or a China to get their hands on exactly what they need to build an almost-as-good fighter in half the time. They'll not only use them to deter the US from threatening their interests around the world (because realistically, we aren't attacking each other directly, but countries like Georgia and Taiwan provide perfect examples of where this would come into play), but they'd also sell them to a lot of countries who would be happy to challenge the US directly (like Iran, North Korea, etc). That's just far, far too much of a risk to take.
The US military is counting on the F-22 (with upgrades along the way) to completely dominate the skies anywhere and everywhere in the world for the next 20-30 years. If someone else gets their hands on enough information to cut their R&D time and expense in half and build something that's nearly as capable, we've lost a massive air advantage. You cannot win a modern war militarily without control of the air. Right now, the F-22 gives us that hands-down. With the F-22, no country on Earth could field aircraft in any skies on Earth; including over their own soil. You really cannot underestimate what kind of deterrent that is to those who'd like to see our power balanced or who would like to take by force those who we protect.
So yes, the production line should be started by taking all future monies out of the F-35 program, but with one change: the entire production process should be completely overhauled to streamline it. When the F-22 production was begun, a political calculation was made to spread the program to as many states and districts as possible so that most politicians in Congress would have to choose between voting to fund the project and cutting off money and jobs to their own constituents. That drove up the cost of building the plane significantly (I've seen figures as high as $30 million per plane). By consolidating and streamlining the process, we'll be able to build many more F-22s with a lot less money.
I'd also note that it would be a huge mistake to try and add any significant ground attack capability to the plane. Our most successful aircraft do one job and do it well. The F-15 rules the skies. It does so wherever it goes and it's done beautifully. It kills planes. It's not great at doing a ton of ground attacking, but it doesn't need to. We have bombers hitting bombable targets and for moving targets we have another hugely specialized aircraft: the A-10. The A-10 is the pinnacle of anti-vehicle attack aircraft. You'd never fly A-10s in against enemy aircraft because that's not its job. The F-15s clear the skies and the A-10s clear the mobile ground targets. The F-22 should be a simple drop-in replacement for the aging F-15. The A-10 still does a f
I completely agree with you here, and that's really the design philosophy behind the F-22. Without upgrades, it'd destroy any fighter on any drawing board anywhere in the world today. Realistically, that means anything being flown in production in the next 20+ years. With upgrades, it'll do that for a lot longer. It doesn't need to hit ships and tanks and SAM sites; it need only clear the skies of enemy aircraft. If it does that, then it's done its job and we own the sky.
Owning the sky doesn't guarantee victory, but not owning them guarantees that you won't win militarily.
If side A has planes side B can't see (let alone shoot down), then we're not looking at which side can churn out more of their planes.
In fact, we're talking about whether side B can churn out more planes (and pilots) than side A can churn out missiles to destroy them.
Is there anyone who can build planes and train pilots faster than we can build missiles and attach them to Raptors? No? Then there isn't a problem.
I don't doubt this report. However, my understanding is that the point of F-22 is to conduct its engagements at long-range and avoid these close-range knife fights. If the threat gets to dog-fighting range, the F-22s have screwed up and lost their greatest advantages.
I certainly do doubt it. First of all, the F-22 has fought in many, many mock combat situations against the best pilots in the USAF and the Navy flying the F/A-18, F-15e, etc. When results are reported through reputable sources, the F-22 typically is said to get somewhere between 15:1 and n:0 kills:losses. In direct combat, they never begin beyond visual range as it's considered a waste of time. They've tried that and every plane that did it went down against the F-22 before they could do anything. Then they started them within visual range, but even then almost no one could get/stay behind the F-22s. Most reports indicate pilots either can't get or can't maintain a stable lock in any kind of reliable fashion even with the F-22 sitting plainly in front of them. In full red vs blue exercises, the F-22s primarily act as local AWACS and target pre-planned enemies. Having them act within their typical role of full-on air dominance fighters would just be a waste of time and gas.
So on the one hand, we have a dozen or more reports of exercises and full-on productions wherein the best pilots in the world flying the best planes in the world (including the battle-tested F-15e, which has NEVER been shot down in combat) with the best avionics in the world can barely manage to do any locking even when they vastly outnumber the F-22 and start in the most advantageous position possible, and on the other, we have some guy with an obvious axe to grind (the ridiculously inflated cost figures and flippant remarks about the aircraft's safety/reliability) writing an article for Wired who's quoting some magazine article that isn't even linked telling us "This key piece of gear allows pilots in other planes — including the German Typhoon — to lock missiles onto a target merely by looking at it. “We had a Raptor salad for lunch,” one German pilot quipped after using his jet’s helmet sight and maneuverability to get the best of an F-22 over Alaska."
So we're to believe that the F-15e with its advanced avionics and best-in-the-world pilots who've seen actual combat around the world gets absolutely slaughtered, but some German pilots just waltz up to the F-22, follow it around with ease, and then take a good look at it when they're ready to blow it up?
Please. The author shows his bias throughout the "article" which is actually just a re-hash of a magazine article he read and decided to "report" on for Wired once he applied his own spin. I don't see any actual numbers from this, but according to this article: http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123307285 the F-22s cleared all enemy aircraft from the sky. They talked about difficulties too; such as the language barriers between allied pilots. Until I see something other than some magazine article (as in, some kind of official or at least solid source), it's somebody's fantasy put to paper and regurgitated by those who either have an axe to grind (anti-war folks) or who just want ratings/readers. I don't doubt that some pilots talked some smack, but reporting that as if it has any meaning is terribly misleading at best.
Why wait for a 200 mile electric car
How can one wait for a car that came out 4 years ago? The Tesla Roadster had a 244 mile range and is all-electric. The Tesla Model S (which began shipping this year) has up to a 300 mile range on the top end battery option.
The pricing is a bit higher for now, but it's coming down very fast and they're aiming for $30,000 on the next generation. That said, the 200-mile all electric car is a few years old now and they work great.
2008 - The Tesla Roadster is a $110,000 (base price) sports car with a 244 mile range.
2012 - The Tesla Model S is a $57,000 - $77,000 (base price) sedan with 160 - 300 mile range.
2015 (estimated) - Tesla Gen III Sedans are targeting $30,000 base price with comparable Model S ranges.
In addition, Tesla is rolling out a "supercharge" network to support changing away from home in convenient locations in target markets. The Model S has also been promised to include a 5-minute battery quick change option. Once that is available at (for instance) gas stations, it'll take as much time to refill your electric as it does to refill your gas car, except it'll cost a whole lot less.
This guy is actually delivering functioning, functional electric cars and building the infrastructure to support them. I wouldn't bet against him; everyone who's done that so far has been proven wrong repeatedly.
Our property crime rates roughly equal UK violent crime rates. Our violent crime rate is about 1/5 of their's.
So yes, the guns may not be keeping my TV from getting stolen while I'm on vacation, but they keep me from getting stabbed over my wallet and cell phone.
The chances of being burglarized or mugged in the first place decrease significantly if the intended "victim" is believed to be armed.
You see a lot of rapes, muggings, or murders at police stations and gun shows?
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
In the vast majority of the United States, it is legal to own and carry firearms.
In Kennesaw, GA, it's required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law) and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country (http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html).
UK: 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html)
US: 404 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime)
With what gun, you idiot bloody Yank?
Handguns are banned outright in my country, including (almost the entirety of) the police, and most people, including said police (who ARE regularly ballotted), WANT it that way.
If most people WANT to enslave black people, does that make it right? Both you and we did that for a long time. The majority (who were regularly ballotted), WANTED it that way. If most people WANT to take away women's voting rights, does that make it right? Both you and we did that for a long time. The majority (who were regularly ballotted), WANTED it that way.
Stripping people of their basic human rights cannot be rightfully done by majority vote. Sure it can be done through threat of force and violence (such as armed police/paramilitary troops raiding your home and hauling you off to prison at gunpoint), but no amount of force can make it right. It doesn't matter how many people vote or how many people are arrested; basic human rights still exist. Among those is the right to self defense and the tools necessary to make that right have actual meaning.
Oddly, we also have far less shooting massacres than you bloody Septics. Funny how those seem to be related, isn't it?
Less shootings? Absolutely. Less violent crime? Not by a long shot.
UK: 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html)
US: 404 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime)
Worst city in the US: Memphis with 1,007 violent crimes per 100,000 people (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6)
Wake me up when your gun/self-defense free country stops being the violence capital of the western world.
That would be out in the UK, but hitting the fucker is not, assuming that you are not dealing with a small kid.
But the likelihood is the person doing the mugging is bigger than the person being mugged. So is your phone worth being beaten up or stabbed for?
No, but either of those things may happen either way. Hence why you shoot them. If someone simply demands your wallet, you chuckle and continue walking. If they threaten you with bodily harm, respond appropriately and with deadly force if necessary. This is the right of every human being regardless of where they live.
You can defend yourself, just not with a gun.
So "you can do x, you simply can't have any of the tools necessary to do x"? That makes no sense. It's like saying "you can change out a flat on the highway, just not with a tire that's inflated." It's a Non Sequitur. If you have the right to defend yourself (and you do, all human beings do), then you have the right to use the tools necessary to do so. How does an 80 year old 90lb woman keep from getting mugged/robbed/beaten/raped/murdered by a 6'3" 250lb criminal? She pulls out a 9mm, aims, and fires. A gun is a tool that equalizes any confrontation. The worst the other guy can have is a gun. The most you can have is a gun. Ergo, if you have a gun, your worst-case scenario is that you're now on equal footing with your assailant. This is an incredible tool.
This is democracy, the majority don't want liberal gun ownership so we don't have it.
It's two wolves and a hen voting on what's for dinner; that's what it is. You can't take away someone's intrinsic rights by voting. The majority can't vote all women into slavery and have it be right. The majority can't vote all blacks into slavery and have it be right. The majority can't vote that we kill all people over age 65 and have it be right. The majority can't vote that homosexuals will all be rounded up and chemically castrated and have it be right. The majority can't vote that blacks and whites must use separate bathrooms and have it be right. And the majority can't vote that human beings may have no legal access to the tools necessary to defend themselves from violent criminals and have it be right.
All people have the right to self-defense.
Therefore, all people have the right to keep and use the tools necessary for that right to have any appreciable meaning.
As such, no vote by any majority can rightfully take those tools away.
If your government allows human rights to be stripped by majority vote, your government is broken. Get yourself a new government.
Muggings happen all the time, the police have long since given up any shred of investigation since the punishment is almost non-existent providing no firearms are used or the victim does not need hospital treatment. The last time I as mugged I didn't even bother reporting it, who needs the hassle.
If you want to make sure the police investigate you need to resist and get stabbed or something. If it is just a straight mugging with no violence (just the threat) then the punishment would be a fine or community order anyway even if they investigated
If there's no violence, how about walking away? And if there is, shoot the fucker. Self defense isn't a crime. If your government tells you that you can't defend yourself, get yourself a new government.
This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.
Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and that it was heavily encouraged by both President Clinton and (far moreso) by President George W. Bush via Housing and Urban Development.
Further, I kinda figured that several years of practically free money flowing from the quasi-government entity known as the Federal Reserve fueled all kinds of terrible investments (like a housing bubble?). And you know, I didn't think it was helpful that a pair of government-sponsored entities (who were under the direction of the US Congress, had the implicit backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, and who've been taken into conservatorship by the US Federal government) kept prices and rates artificially low at great cost to the US taxpayer and who - together - account for about 60% of the US mortgage market. Doesn't that sort of thing usually spawn... a bubble?
Not really sure what led me to believe all of that stuff. Does the narrative even make sense? Congress changes an existing law and the President changes enforcement to pressure those who give mortgages to hand out more loans to the "economically disadvantaged" in their communities in the mid-1990s which causes lenders to put a ton of loans on their books that don't look very good? I mean, I guess the banks and such would already be lending to people who were qualified for loans; there's no reason not to, right? If you're qualified, the bank makes money through the life of the loan, you get a house, and everybody wins, yeah? So I suppose if Congress had to force banks to make a bunch of loans, it'd probably mean that those loans weren't so great. Now from what I know of banks, they've got to answer to the bean counters and stock holders and all sorts of other people who get fussy when the books start looking scary. I guess if that started to happen, "the government made me do it" probably wouldn't cut it for very long. So on the one side, you've got the government pressuring the lenders to create loans they wouldn't normally create, and on the other hand, you've got people who are like "hey, if you go out of business, I lose a lot of money, so don't do that!" After a little while of that and not seeing things get any better, I know I'd be looking for another way out. Which is interesting, because the US government invented a neat way to get loans off your books back in 1970 with what are called "Mortgage-backed securities" (courtesy of Ginnie Mae). More than half the mortgages in the US have been turned into those, (including $3 Trillion worth in 2003 alone in a $12 Trillion total market) so that's pretty neat.
Ok, so the lenders have a good way move the bad loans off their books, and by all accounts, they start doing just that. By 2002, President Bush was
The mall doesn't have the legal authority to do so. State police do.
Irrelevant to the constitutionality and properness of the law itself. If an officer is abusing power or behaving inappropriately, the answer isn't to blame a perfectly legitimate law, but to punish/retrain the officer(s) as needed.
Citation from the actual written law?
Ahh but you said they couldn't be checked unless they had already been stopped for a crime.
Correct.
So if you already have a reason to hold someone why would you have to check out their papers to see if you have an excuse to hold them?
Why would police officers want to know if someone they've detained or arrested for a crime isn't even supposed to be in the country in the first place? Is that a serious question? Checking the immigration status isn't looking for "an excuse to hold them". Checking immigration status is screening for people who have illegally entered this country in violation of Federal law so they can be deported. The purpose of law enforcement is enforcement of the law. The law says that persons found to be in the country illegally are removed from the country and barred from re-entry.
And the answer is no, the feds don't want the individual in question held. As far as I can tell what they want is everyone involved with SB1070 to go @%$@$% themselves.
Actually, the current policy of the Obama Administration is that persons who've been convicted of a serious crime are at the front of the line for deportation. If/when Arizona law enforcement phones up the Feds and tells them they're holding Fred Smith, and the Feds find out Fred Smith has been convicted of molesting little girls or murdering people, they'll respond back with a "hold" so they can come right down and get Fred on his way back to his country of origin ASAP after he's paid for his crimes here.
We live in the real world. In the real world, even people with very different opinions have common ground. Virtually no one believes that a murderer or child molester who's entered this country illegally should escape punishment and deportation. Further, it's a political impossibility for the Obama administration (or any administration for that matter) to order the release of an illegal alien who's killing American citizens and molesting their children.
Okay got it, it's like letting the police search you without a warrant because you have nothing to hide and if you have nothing to hide you don't need the 4'th amendment.
You always have the option to allow the police to search you without a warrant. If the police ask to search your car, you can choose to allow them to do so (which will make things go quickly) or you can refuse the search and take the risk that they'll hold you there until proper procedures can be followed in your state for a search without consent. It's up to you.
For what purpose could the local police possibly need information about immigration status? To obtain counselor services for a foreign national? They certainly don't have the power to deport anyone.
For the purpose of enforcing the state law which mandates they do so and report suspected illegal aliens to Federal immigration authorities so the Feds can tell them whether or not to hold the individual in question so the Feds can come get them.
It isn't based on suspicion; it's based on reasonable suspicion, which is a legal term with very specific requirements. Further, it's a suspicion which cannot (per the text of the law) have a basis in race or ethnicity.
There's no law requiring you to carry ID. Why would you want to give it to police? Perhaps to end the encounter quickly and easily? You can make the encounter longer and more confrontational than necessary if you like, but you should know that most states and most courts give police fairly wide discretion in terms of Terry stops and stops in general. The purpose of the stop is to identify you and investigate what you're doing. You may believe that's none of the business of the state or the police, but that isn't how the laws are written. You may not like it, but it's been upheld time and time again. If you don't like it, do something about it at a level that matters; like the state legislature, the state governorship, and non-profits that work to push the balance of such encounters back in the favor of ordinary citizens.
Now back to the Arizona law. The ID section has NOTHING to do with any requirement to carry ID or "papers". It's a fail-safe that Federal immigration enforcement law lacks which is designed to help US citizens end any questions about their immigration status quickly and easily. Further, the Arizona law doesn't allow such questions to be raised until you've already been detained or arrested for something else. An actual detention (not a simple stop) has its own legal requirements before it can happen. Even then, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person being detained or arrested is in the country illegally before the immigration status questions can begin. And even then, any Federal, state, or local government identification document that requires proof of legal US residence for issuance is an automatic end to any questions of immigration status.
That's what's in the law. Read it; it's simple and direct.
If the laws of the United States are too much of a hassle to follow, don't come. Instead, lobby your country of origin's government to ask the United States for easier requirements. The correct response is not to violate US Federal law because it's just too much trouble to comply.
I don't thinkyou read the post before. Hw was replying to someone who stated that a driving license is not proof of residency. The guy replied by quoting AZ law which states that an AZ driver license is counted as proof. Well, that doesn't really matter since most CITIZENS don't have an AZ license. Nor do they have any requirement to carry anything else when driving in AZ.
Actually, I replied quoting Arizona law which states that any Federal, state, or local government identification document which requires proof of legal US residence for issuance proves legal residence for the purposes of the Arizona law and ends any and all questions as to the individual's immigration status. Most citizens do have such a document. All have one available to them. You're not required to carry it with you, but if you're detained or arrested for a crime in Arizona and the police have a reasonable suspicion that you're here illegally, such a document is the fastest and easiest way to end that suspicion.
The New Mexico drivers license meets the Arizona requirements for identification and for legally exercising the driving privilege. It does not meet the requirements for proving legal US residence because that license's issuance does not require such proof to be provided as a prerequisite.
Where in the constitution does it say that US citizens have to register with Arizon in order not to be illegally hassled by racists on the way through?
Right next to the spot where it says that people who are ignorant about the purpose and content of state laws have to respond like complete dicks on Slashdot instead of having a reasoned debate. If you'd like to talk about the content of the law or the wisdom of the policy, that's fine. You don't want to do that. You want to sputter out nonsense about racism and the US Constitution with little understanding of either.
What if you're oh, I don't know, New Mexican and Hispanic (like the majority in NM)? It's not like the states are next door to one another or anything.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
Look, no proof of legal residence in the US required:
http://www.mvd.newmexico.gov/Drivers/Licensing/Pages/Proof-of-New-Mexico-Residency.aspx
You can be entirelly legally driving in AZ without any kind of proof of valid residency, and it's not even especially likely to be the case.
Indeed you can be perfectly legally driving through the state of Arizona without any kind of proof of valid residency. This law doesn't affect that. This law merely states that if you are already detained or arrested for another crime, AND police have a reasonable suspicion not based on race or ethnicity that you're in the country illegally, they must inquire as to your immigration status. Worst case scenario, they take your ID, forward the information to Federal immigration authorities through the existing process, and receive a hold/no-hold from them.
There is no requirement that you carry a particular ID or type of ID while in Arizona. The ID section is a fail-safe for US citizens designed to ensure that the vast majority of American citizens can quickly and easily end all questions surrounding their immigration status under this law. It's an extra protection built into this law which does not exist in Federal law. A US citizen can be stopped, detained, arrested, and held for a significant amount of time by Federal immigration authorities. They don't care what ID you have; they don't have to stop the questioning. The Arizona police cannot question your immigration status any further if you present any government ID whose issuance required proof of residence as a prerequisite.
flailing her little Kermit arms
Classic invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument.
No, it's a well-placed quip mocking exactly the kind of hysterical nonsense you've displayed in your own comments. I have a perfectly logical argument backed by actual text from the law itself. You have hysterical ranting and emotionally charged words glued into poorly formed sentences with misspelled state names. Care to debate the facts of the situation without the hysteria? I'm ready when you are.
You're violating FEDERAL law. Up until now, that was no business of your local or state beat cop. Which is why they tried to make it a state crime, which would have eliminated the federal angle altogether, but that was shut down hard. I just don't see how the "papers please" rule can be enforced without the prohibited racial profiling. Typically, cops just ask everybody to avoid that charge, but the law requires "reasonable suspicion". So how do you become "reasonably suspicious" towards enough whites with baseball cap driving a pickup to justify asking all the hispanics with the same looks?
*cop pulls over speeder*
*speeder speaks little or no English (doesn't matter what language he does speak)*
*speeder has no license*
*speeder has no identification that proves residency per the Arizona law*
*speeder seems unusually nervous for someone dealing with simple speeding infraction*
"Excuse me, sir, are you in the United States illegally?"
Nothing in the above is specific to any race. Whether a hispanic-looking man or a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedish bombshell, it applies quite equally. That took about 30 seconds of thinking to come up with. Smarter people than I can come up with another 50 ideas, many of them a lot better than what I've listed.