Minor gripe, the F/A 18E/F entered service in 2000 so it's the same age as the Rafale. It really is a completely different plane than the earlier F/A 18s, they only kept the F/A 18 designation to make it easier to sell to congress as an interim measure while they wait for the F 35. Also, it's quite a bit cheaper than the Rafale. But as you said, it doesn't match the requirements, it's too big.
Here's the thing. They need these planes because they may go to war with Pakistan or China some day. For diplomatic reasons, the US would be expected to condemn such an action and impose sanctions, failure to do so would compromise relations between the US and whatever nation India chooses to go to war with. Pakistan is an important ally in the war on terror, and China is an important economic partner, so the US will attempt to preserve relations with them.
It just doesn't make sense to buy them from the US if using them might mean problems supplying them.
The thing about a moral panic is not that the problem doesn't exist, but that people believe it is larger than it really is, and they take actions to mitigate it which are not warranted.
The more technical terms is moral panic. It is beyond ridiculous that such a well understood phenomena is completely lost on people who are supposedly "experts" on criminal behavior.
I hate the military as much as anybody, but I don't think it's fair to take it out on the soldiers. I think most people don't really understand what they're getting into when they sign up. They sign up thinking they'll be fighting bad-guys, not blowing up innocent children to further some political agenda (or shuffling around paper-work and doing dishes, which is often the case too).
Then once they're in they try to make the best of a bad situation. There are sociopaths in the military (the same as you would find anywhere) but I don't think it's the standard. And it's very telling that the military heavily supports Ron Paul. Obviously they don't like being overseas blowing up innocent women and children, or they would support one of the chichen-hawk warmongers instead.
How, in the name of Grid, could that be considered "best case scenario"?
That's be best result your silly regulations will be able to achieve. In reality, they won't achieve even that because they will include loopholes and exemptions.
If someone has a personal vendetta against you, and they use information to blackmail you or whatever, there are already laws in place you can use to sue them. Pushing for regulations to prevent private corporations from having personal infomation is misguided, as the principle collectors of this kind of information (governments and banks) will be largely immune from it and are still employing thousands of regular people. If your regulations are missing most of the potential offenders, all they really do is give people a false sense of security.
As for letting people know what kind of information may be gathered: full disclosure is always a good thing. Again any regulations are going to miss the people you should really be worried about.
If advertisers get to know where you work and what you like, that's enough to understand who you are in many cases.
Which is bad because then they'd be able to try to sell you stuff you might actually want, rather than a bunch of stupid crap you don't care about? I just don't see it.
As far as your list goes, I have no illusions that government legislation can protect any information I would voluntarily choose to share. Best case scenario: corporations store and trade the information secretly. So, if you have something and you want to keep it private, the only way to do that is to keep it to yourself. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.
I never understood the objection to targeted advertising. I don't particularly enjoy sitting through adds for tampons, dating services, or political candidates. But I quite like ads for electronics, camping gear, movies, cars and things like that. So why wouldn't I want a website to know what kinds of ads interest me? Targeted ads are greatly preferable to general ads.
I'll be in favor of a "right to be forgotten" if it applies to the government and banks. Otherwise, it's not really worth it.
I think maybe where they've gone off track is they are thinking they can regulate anything related to interstate commerce, rather than just the commerce itself.
Yes, meaningless letters and numbers are way cooler. My mistake. If I have a daughter, I'll name her ZX-32, not something stupid like Jennifer or Lizzy.
I think they're planning to do the launch of the Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg sometime in 2013. I'm not sure if this has anything specifically to do with their plans for reusability, though I'm sure they'd like all their rockets to be reusable eventually.
you are being made into a perfect little consumer. hope you enjoy having that done to you...
Yes, now that our information is no longer given to us exclusively by a small number of powerful news organizations, things are going to get a lot worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Minor gripe, the F/A 18E/F entered service in 2000 so it's the same age as the Rafale. It really is a completely different plane than the earlier F/A 18s, they only kept the F/A 18 designation to make it easier to sell to congress as an interim measure while they wait for the F 35. Also, it's quite a bit cheaper than the Rafale. But as you said, it doesn't match the requirements, it's too big.
Here's the thing. They need these planes because they may go to war with Pakistan or China some day. For diplomatic reasons, the US would be expected to condemn such an action and impose sanctions, failure to do so would compromise relations between the US and whatever nation India chooses to go to war with. Pakistan is an important ally in the war on terror, and China is an important economic partner, so the US will attempt to preserve relations with them.
It just doesn't make sense to buy them from the US if using them might mean problems supplying them.
Dear god, I feel like I'm going to throw up. Here's a link for those you who aren't as squeamish about this kind of thing as I am.
The thing about a moral panic is not that the problem doesn't exist, but that people believe it is larger than it really is, and they take actions to mitigate it which are not warranted.
You're basing your performance assessment on the ability to perform a single specific maneuver? That's a little narrow minded isn't it?
I am not really opposed to providing them with bullets. I'll leave the details to you. And if I get arrested for saying that, I blame you.
The more technical terms is moral panic. It is beyond ridiculous that such a well understood phenomena is completely lost on people who are supposedly "experts" on criminal behavior.
Is it on your cellphone?
They may not answer you truthfully.
A fox is a fox. A person walking around may be on ether way to the market, or they may be on their way to detonate a roadside bomb. It's hard to tell.
That becomes harder to do when you don't know who the civilian non-comtatants are. Ultimately, you just have to take your commander's word for it.
They signed up voluntarily, everything else they were required to do. You can't just quit being in the army.
I don't think I'd call posturing a "very good reason." I'd use the words "unreasonable reason," that way I'd be taking it back before I even said it.
I hate the military as much as anybody, but I don't think it's fair to take it out on the soldiers. I think most people don't really understand what they're getting into when they sign up. They sign up thinking they'll be fighting bad-guys, not blowing up innocent children to further some political agenda (or shuffling around paper-work and doing dishes, which is often the case too).
Then once they're in they try to make the best of a bad situation. There are sociopaths in the military (the same as you would find anywhere) but I don't think it's the standard. And it's very telling that the military heavily supports Ron Paul. Obviously they don't like being overseas blowing up innocent women and children, or they would support one of the chichen-hawk warmongers instead.
It's true that you can only sue after your reputation's been destroyed. But these proposed regulations wouldn't change that.
Not only are they immune, they are required to hold the information for a period of time.
That's be best result your silly regulations will be able to achieve. In reality, they won't achieve even that because they will include loopholes and exemptions.
If someone has a personal vendetta against you, and they use information to blackmail you or whatever, there are already laws in place you can use to sue them. Pushing for regulations to prevent private corporations from having personal infomation is misguided, as the principle collectors of this kind of information (governments and banks) will be largely immune from it and are still employing thousands of regular people. If your regulations are missing most of the potential offenders, all they really do is give people a false sense of security.
As for letting people know what kind of information may be gathered: full disclosure is always a good thing. Again any regulations are going to miss the people you should really be worried about.
Which is bad because then they'd be able to try to sell you stuff you might actually want, rather than a bunch of stupid crap you don't care about? I just don't see it.
As far as your list goes, I have no illusions that government legislation can protect any information I would voluntarily choose to share. Best case scenario: corporations store and trade the information secretly. So, if you have something and you want to keep it private, the only way to do that is to keep it to yourself. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.
I never understood the objection to targeted advertising. I don't particularly enjoy sitting through adds for tampons, dating services, or political candidates. But I quite like ads for electronics, camping gear, movies, cars and things like that. So why wouldn't I want a website to know what kinds of ads interest me? Targeted ads are greatly preferable to general ads.
I'll be in favor of a "right to be forgotten" if it applies to the government and banks. Otherwise, it's not really worth it.
Looks like the second one to me.
I think maybe where they've gone off track is they are thinking they can regulate anything related to interstate commerce, rather than just the commerce itself.
Yes, meaningless letters and numbers are way cooler. My mistake. If I have a daughter, I'll name her ZX-32, not something stupid like Jennifer or Lizzy.
I think they're planning to do the launch of the Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg sometime in 2013. I'm not sure if this has anything specifically to do with their plans for reusability, though I'm sure they'd like all their rockets to be reusable eventually.
This is known as the just world hypothesis.
Yes, now that our information is no longer given to us exclusively by a small number of powerful news organizations, things are going to get a lot worse.
I have a bridge you might be interested in.