Iraq attacked first. Not only that, before the Iran-Iraq war, last time Iran was when UK and Soviets invaded them in WWII, just in case, for the petrol. They had plenty of wars with Russia and some with the Ottoman Empire but not after the middle of the 19th Century for both.
The spectrum is not worth much, it's in the space-groundstation comms sections of the band and can only be used for weak signals. If you intend to build a massive fleet of satellites which will be beaming data to the ground, go for it. The quoted $4b is a small cost compared to the the R&D + launch costs for a fleet of satellites.
Last time they tried to do that and give the refuelling fleet to Airbus, Boeing threw its toys out of the pram and cried so hard, the bid was cancelled and guess who won next time.
No US bombers currently flying have a gun turret. B-52's turret was removed in 1991. I think there are a couple of russian bombers with gun turrets but I would rather think they're not operational anymore. Missiles are much more efficient.
You can easily look at a problem which is based on known physics, do some calculations and come up with the answer. If the answer is "it won't work", you can oppose the idiots pushing for it for their own monetary benefit with a clear conscience. It does not mean that you are biased. Instead, you are based on the facts.
On the other hand, in a country which is opposed to Science as strongly as USA, I would not be surprised to see that such a stand would be viewed as 'biased elitist shit'.
China is not planning to beat UK (us?) militarily, they can do that easily without any planning.
I am more afraid of US actions than any other nations since they will be done in reflex, w/o any thinking. Invading Iraq, what were Messrs Bush & Blair thinking? Obviously, the answer is "not"!
This reminds me... The US Military-Industrial Complex likes having a gap to get US spend money (on their products) to close the cap. Historically so-called bomber gap didn't exist, it was based on the same 10 bombers flying in a circular pattern over the same parade ground 6 times which gave an inflated bomber count number for the wanna-believe crowd. General Le May, the murdered of millions of civilians in Japan, testified in Congress, asking for more strategic bombers. Same happened a couple of years later, after the Sputnik and everyone started to talk about a missile gap. When you look at historic numbers, it becomes obvious that increase in Russian armament always prompted by sudden and massive increase in US armament.
The Russians had one rocket - one nuke setup until the Americans decided to work around the treaties and have MIRVs. Also US follow-up on Star Wars project freaked the Communists and massive MIRV'ing of Russian missiles happened, with a sudden increase of available nuclear heads. What a mad mad world it was and it took a Russian, Gorbachev, to put a stop to the madness and a senile, Reagan, did the only good thing he did in his two terms, agreed to stop. For his success, Gorbachev lost all his power after a failed coup attempt and the drunk called Yeltsin sidelined him.
Iran? Pakistan? Why bother. If you're interested about someone supplying DRNK with weapons, don't look further away than their north border. In their Glorious Leader's birthday celebrations last month they used Chinese-supplied mobile missile carriers. The only other customer of these was Chinese Army.
And the real enemy US is planning to fight next happens to be China. They have plenty of land to fire these without worrying about 600 miles or double that range. Most of the posters are missing the point, the real need for YAL is not at the security front, it's at the "Filling Boeing's coffers with cash" front, supplying jobs for the Republican voters front and finally "Look, we're rescuing the National Security but that black devil in WHITE House is killing it so he's the evil one" front (courtesy of Fox News) even though it's a massively useless white elephant.
There are a lot of exclusions. (Greece is shown in the map but) CIA meddled heavily in Greece and Turkey to starts. They were involved massively in the Greek civil war against the communists and were involved with the Junta in Greece, similarly they bankrolled and supported all of the military coups in Turkey. And so on. Also Yemen is not shown in that map where US and CIA backed certain factions against Egypt and other Arab Nationalists (including Cuban soldiers fighing in Yemen). No wonder Yemen is still having problems and there's a low-intensity civil war still going on. Overall you can count on CIA training the secret police forces on all friendly countries on torture, counter-insurgency and in general Gladio-like operations all across Europe, esp. Italy, Greece, Turkey. Indirectly (and sometimes directly) CIA and US in their hands have the bloods of hundreds of thousands of missing people in all countries with right-wing dictators / military juntas.
The cruise phase of a ICBM is in space and in space nuclear explosions are not that powerful (there isn't much of a shock wave), the main power tends to be radiative. The simplest fix, painting your missile and warhead white makes them significantly easier to protect. Also thanks to the power law, you need to explode it very close to the target, if you have hundreds of missiles (and thousands of warheads if we're talking about Russia, China or US but not Korea and other small countries which probably haven't mastered MIRV yet), you need to explode a lot of nukes in space hoping you've taken them all out.
Therefore no, attacking them in the cruise phase with the nukes is not a very good option. That's why Reagan's Star Wars project spooked everyone. They were alleging that magical satellites could kill their targets at boost, cruise and terminal phases. No wonder everyone said it wouldn't work (this YAL is a good example, even though I love the SF-lasers, you can't easily get a powerful enough laser) but the Military-Industrial Complex kept on the PR and gobbled up all of the money. The YAL and the Congress's actions are exactly the same, keeping their cronies well-fed ($5b for a single plane! $90k/h flying costs!) while disregarding the reality.
Hah! I went and checked the Wikipedia source. You missed the start of the sentence, "If the ABL achieves its design goals"... If they achieve its design goals, ever. Highly unlikely. The whole thing is a massive pork-barrel exercise by the US Congress. I'm glad to be living in UK. At least we waste our money on aircraft carriers which will be built and immediately sold / mothballed. For the price of this plane, we should get a couple of carriers (I can't believe US spent $5b on this stupidity).
Libertarians with their extreme capitalist views would do anything to protect MPIAA and RIAA. Dog eat dog capitalism. When they talk about 'liberty', it's liberty of abusing others, protecting everything you own (with weapons if necessary) and pure freedom to do anything.
I can't see why NASA is supposed to spend the money since they should be a research and development agency, not a design house. If it is backed by the Government, they can put a tender directly out to the producers via DoT or Army (the real big space programme of US). Similarly, if a company sees that there's a future, they can licence the tech from NASA and build their own aircrafts. I don't understand why it has to be the NASA funding and operating everything end to end.
It's the other way around, F-14 engines are unusually apart. Usually (i.e. F-15, F-4, F-5 etc.) all have their engines side by side. F-14 designers were, for some reason, weren't that afraid of the asymmetric thrust issue which arises with a dead engine.
Dream on. The fracking is expensive, not cheap. The only reason it's done is the cheap oil is gone, no more. You've run out of it and you still haven't cut your demand down.
The gas price difference is mainly due to we pay tax on it, you don't.
That is unless you're an US Citizen voting Republican. Then the response for anything you hear/read which is remotely damaging to your religion or greedy business dealings is "LALALA! LALALALA!! LALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!! YOU DON'T EXIST!"... These people wear the anti-science badge with an honour.
I guess what you mean is they're more careful than the Met and don't get caught since their advisers and bribers are way more clever than the Met's? There's never a case of "no corruption at the Police force", there'always a "not caught yet-corruption case".
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq attacked first. Not only that, before the Iran-Iraq war, last time Iran was when UK and Soviets invaded them in WWII, just in case, for the petrol. They had plenty of wars with Russia and some with the Ottoman Empire but not after the middle of the 19th Century for both.
The spectrum is not worth much, it's in the space-groundstation comms sections of the band and can only be used for weak signals. If you intend to build a massive fleet of satellites which will be beaming data to the ground, go for it. The quoted $4b is a small cost compared to the the R&D + launch costs for a fleet of satellites.
Please do not try to confuse people with facts and logic. We all know MPIAA knows best. Right? Right?
Last time they tried to do that and give the refuelling fleet to Airbus, Boeing threw its toys out of the pram and cried so hard, the bid was cancelled and guess who won next time.
It's all about pork. Nothing else but pork.
And the range during these rigged tests was?
No US bombers currently flying have a gun turret. B-52's turret was removed in 1991.
I think there are a couple of russian bombers with gun turrets but I would rather think they're not operational anymore. Missiles are much more efficient.
You can easily look at a problem which is based on known physics, do some calculations and come up with the answer. If the answer is "it won't work", you can oppose the idiots pushing for it for their own monetary benefit with a clear conscience. It does not mean that you are biased. Instead, you are based on the facts.
On the other hand, in a country which is opposed to Science as strongly as USA, I would not be surprised to see that such a stand would be viewed as 'biased elitist shit'.
China is not planning to beat UK (us?) militarily, they can do that easily without any planning.
I am more afraid of US actions than any other nations since they will be done in reflex, w/o any thinking. Invading Iraq, what were Messrs Bush & Blair thinking? Obviously, the answer is "not"!
This reminds me... The US Military-Industrial Complex likes having a gap to get US spend money (on their products) to close the cap. Historically so-called bomber gap didn't exist, it was based on the same 10 bombers flying in a circular pattern over the same parade ground 6 times which gave an inflated bomber count number for the wanna-believe crowd. General Le May, the murdered of millions of civilians in Japan, testified in Congress, asking for more strategic bombers. Same happened a couple of years later, after the Sputnik and everyone started to talk about a missile gap. When you look at historic numbers, it becomes obvious that increase in Russian armament always prompted by sudden and massive increase in US armament.
The Russians had one rocket - one nuke setup until the Americans decided to work around the treaties and have MIRVs. Also US follow-up on Star Wars project freaked the Communists and massive MIRV'ing of Russian missiles happened, with a sudden increase of available nuclear heads. What a mad mad world it was and it took a Russian, Gorbachev, to put a stop to the madness and a senile, Reagan, did the only good thing he did in his two terms, agreed to stop. For his success, Gorbachev lost all his power after a failed coup attempt and the drunk called Yeltsin sidelined him.
Iran? Pakistan? Why bother. If you're interested about someone supplying DRNK with weapons, don't look further away than their north border. In their Glorious Leader's birthday celebrations last month they used Chinese-supplied mobile missile carriers. The only other customer of these was Chinese Army.
And the real enemy US is planning to fight next happens to be China. They have plenty of land to fire these without worrying about 600 miles or double that range. Most of the posters are missing the point, the real need for YAL is not at the security front, it's at the "Filling Boeing's coffers with cash" front, supplying jobs for the Republican voters front and finally "Look, we're rescuing the National Security but that black devil in WHITE House is killing it so he's the evil one" front (courtesy of Fox News) even though it's a massively useless white elephant.
What kind of an idiot would wear an Union Carbide shirt in India? (link for people who really wonders what we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)
Seriously, if the person is that stupid, let the Darwin Awards committee decide.
There are a lot of exclusions. (Greece is shown in the map but) CIA meddled heavily in Greece and Turkey to starts. They were involved massively in the Greek civil war against the communists and were involved with the Junta in Greece, similarly they bankrolled and supported all of the military coups in Turkey. And so on. Also Yemen is not shown in that map where US and CIA backed certain factions against Egypt and other Arab Nationalists (including Cuban soldiers fighing in Yemen). No wonder Yemen is still having problems and there's a low-intensity civil war still going on. Overall you can count on CIA training the secret police forces on all friendly countries on torture, counter-insurgency and in general Gladio-like operations all across Europe, esp. Italy, Greece, Turkey. Indirectly (and sometimes directly) CIA and US in their hands have the bloods of hundreds of thousands of missing people in all countries with right-wing dictators / military juntas.
The cruise phase of a ICBM is in space and in space nuclear explosions are not that powerful (there isn't much of a shock wave), the main power tends to be radiative. The simplest fix, painting your missile and warhead white makes them significantly easier to protect. Also thanks to the power law, you need to explode it very close to the target, if you have hundreds of missiles (and thousands of warheads if we're talking about Russia, China or US but not Korea and other small countries which probably haven't mastered MIRV yet), you need to explode a lot of nukes in space hoping you've taken them all out.
Therefore no, attacking them in the cruise phase with the nukes is not a very good option. That's why Reagan's Star Wars project spooked everyone. They were alleging that magical satellites could kill their targets at boost, cruise and terminal phases. No wonder everyone said it wouldn't work (this YAL is a good example, even though I love the SF-lasers, you can't easily get a powerful enough laser) but the Military-Industrial Complex kept on the PR and gobbled up all of the money. The YAL and the Congress's actions are exactly the same, keeping their cronies well-fed ($5b for a single plane! $90k/h flying costs!) while disregarding the reality.
Hah! I went and checked the Wikipedia source. You missed the start of the sentence, "If the ABL achieves its design goals"... If they achieve its design goals, ever. Highly unlikely. The whole thing is a massive pork-barrel exercise by the US Congress. I'm glad to be living in UK. At least we waste our money on aircraft carriers which will be built and immediately sold / mothballed. For the price of this plane, we should get a couple of carriers (I can't believe US spent $5b on this stupidity).
Do you feel the same about police helicopters?
Libertarians with their extreme capitalist views would do anything to protect MPIAA and RIAA. Dog eat dog capitalism. When they talk about 'liberty', it's liberty of abusing others, protecting everything you own (with weapons if necessary) and pure freedom to do anything.
I can't see why NASA is supposed to spend the money since they should be a research and development agency, not a design house. If it is backed by the Government, they can put a tender directly out to the producers via DoT or Army (the real big space programme of US). Similarly, if a company sees that there's a future, they can licence the tech from NASA and build their own aircrafts. I don't understand why it has to be the NASA funding and operating everything end to end.
Their own front page has the broken link. After a frantic call from an MS Lawyer, they must have decided to pull it down, I guess...
It's the other way around, F-14 engines are unusually apart. Usually (i.e. F-15, F-4, F-5 etc.) all have their engines side by side. F-14 designers were, for some reason, weren't that afraid of the asymmetric thrust issue which arises with a dead engine.
Dream on. The fracking is expensive, not cheap. The only reason it's done is the cheap oil is gone, no more. You've run out of it and you still haven't cut your demand down.
The gas price difference is mainly due to we pay tax on it, you don't.
That is unless you're an US Citizen voting Republican. Then the response for anything you hear/read which is remotely damaging to your religion or greedy business dealings is "LALALA! LALALALA!! LALALALALALA!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!! YOU DON'T EXIST!"... These people wear the anti-science badge with an honour.
I guess what you mean is they're more careful than the Met and don't get caught since their advisers and bribers are way more clever than the Met's? There's never a case of "no corruption at the Police force", there'always a "not caught yet-corruption case".
There's likely to be corruption. This is the police force who was paid significant amount of money by the Murdoch Media.
Simple. Redundancy backup.