You seem to be looking at the amount the rails can hold. But if you compare the loaded weight of the aircraft to the maximum takeoff weight, you can see that the A-10 can take off with a bit more ordinance than an F-16, though I wouldn't say it dwarfs it. Look at the armament list on the wikipedia page, you'll see that the A-10 can carry 8 AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles while the F-16 can carry only 6.
It suffers from decimal creep. You can only divide it in half a couple times before you have either a lot of digits, or you have to start rounding. That system is non-sensical. Maybe if it were base 8, or 16 I'd be willing to ditch english units, but as it is you can usually get better numbers with english than with metric. Seriously, why is our numbering system in base 10? The only way it could be worse if it were based on a prime number like 7, or 13 (2 would be better, but the resulting numbers would be too long). How come they didn't change that when they were changing all the measurements to match the base of the number system? It seems like a pretty obvious flaw to me. Also, the article is wrong. Great Britain still uses pounds and gallons and miles per hour. I know because I watch Top Gear.
There weren't any A-10s employed in taking out Iraq's infrastructure or attacking Taliban hideouts.
The A-10 was, in fact, deployed in both those wars, and was used for a variety of missions serving as close air support. Not just taking out tanks, but any targets on the ground. If you know the location of you target in advance, and you want to drop a bomb on them, it doesn't make much sense to send an A-10 because they take longer to get there and are vulnerable in the process. But if you are supporting ground troops, it makes a lot of sense to send an A-10 because it can stick with them and engage targets as they come up.
The point I was originally trying to make is that attack aircraft are designed attack ground targets, while fighter aircraft are designed for air to air. Your post here more or less reinforces the point that an F-16 is not an attack aircraft. Speed does not work to your benefit when you're trying to hit targets on the ground. The A-10 is a straight wing aircraft (slow) which is heavily armored (for an aircraft) and can carry a lot of ordinance. This is ideally what you'd like to see in an aircraft designed to provide close air support for people on the ground. It is not designed strictly as a tank killer, but it is designed strictly to hit targets which are on the ground, which is where you find tanks. The F-16, is much faster (which is not beneficial to an attack aircraft), it doesn't carry as much ordinance, and it can't take as much abuse as an A-10.
You say the Air Force want's to get rid of them, but the Air-Force isn't planning to replace them until at least 2028. That's because they work well in their current role, which is attacking ground targets.
I'm sure there are a lot of countries that have a smaller military and would rather use their fighter aircraft in an attack role. That doesn't mean they're suited for it, it just means they're using what they've got.
Sorry, that was a typo. Their replacement cost is $140 million. I don't think the US would sell F-22s to Canada. But it is a more suitable aircraft for the job.
As an attack aircraft, it is much less effective than one of these even though it is significantly more expensive. Of course, the US is the sole operator of the A-10.
I'm not going to get a 3G tablet, because I'd have to replace it when a 4G version becomes available. ATT and verizon now support tethering. The thing that makes sense right now is getting the WiFi version so that later on when I upgrade my phone I will automatically upgrade my tablet.
It's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of helping people find jobs, but is it really that bad of an idea? Any publicity campaign designed to combat unemployment would have been equally absurd given the real difficulties people face when trying to find a job after a period of unemployment. But you may not have noticed because it would have been boring and easy to overlook. I can assure you that people who are unemployed find all this garbage to be annoying and pointless and degrading. It doesn't matter if it's a cape or a brochure with tips on how to find a job, it's all the same nonsense.
I don't usually like to nit-pick, but the F16 is a fighter aircraft, not an attack aircraft (that's what the F stands for). "A" stands for attack (like the A10), that's why you see the newer hornets with the F/A18 label. The distinction is that fighters are intended for air to air combat, while attack aircraft are air to ground.
The obvious difference is the F35B is a carrier launch vehicle, while the F22 is not. Since the US likes to maintain a global military presence, the F22 alone won't cut it. As for the replacement cost, I haven't seen one for the F35 yet, but I wouldn't be surprised is it matches or exceeds the $70 million it costs to replace an F22 (especially the vertical landing version). The aircraft are similar in terms of materials and technologies used, so it should cost about the same to make them. The main reason you'd think an F22 might be more expensive is it is larger and has 2 engines instead of one. But if you really think about it, that doesn't have much to do with the overall cost of a fighter craft these days.
As for your second point, the three variants really do constitute three different aircraft in terms of their capabilities. But using the same general design and the same parts where possible cuts down on the overall development cost. Since they need to upgrade the aircraft used for all three roles, it makes sense to kill three birds with one stone, so to speak.
I'm going to have to agree. I don't know anyone who is planning to get (or is excited about the possibility of getting) a windows phone. Add the fact that many (most) companies are now supporting iOS and Android on their corporate networks, and what you come up with is a market already filled with devices superior to anything Microsoft could offer. No one is going to willingly downgrade to a windows phone.
People need to learn the benefits of diversity personally so that they will seek it out in an individual basis. You can't force them into accepting it (and trying to do so will really only teach them to resent it). Also, people need to learn to look past the harsh words of others so that they can really address what is being said. These are the kinds of things that promote diversity. Trying to accomplish that by overhauling twitter would be like herding casts.
Of course sugar isn't toxic. Next silly question. Then again some people want to label CO2 toxic. Maybe the problem is just that some people are not willing to try to make the distinction between something that can be harmful, must be used responsibly, and something which is toxic, and should be avoided to whatever extent possible (with April 20th approaching, I seem to find myself arguing with these people more and more). Some people prefer to simply ban everything that can be harmful, so that they don't have to think too much about what they're doing.
They helped enable the growth of cheap personal computers
By using shady business practices to snuff out the competition and cram inferior products down our throats? I don't think so. The fact that there were competitors to snuff out means that they weren't the only game in town. So it's not true when you say they "take computers away from being an elitist geek hobby".
companies will always use whatever means they can get away with to acquire or keep an edge over their competitors
Do you think the goal of the economy is to make sure that the most unscrupulous sociopaths imaginable end up being in charge? I think I learned something about "allocating resources" or something like that in economics. I guess the world is what you make of it. You must be a very strange person, if this is what you want for yourself. I would say that it may be better to stand up to people like Billy-G, but if you would rather bow down before him, that's cool. I mean, someone must have been buying all his shit software for all those years, right?
The problem with that is people can't orbit a telescope around the moon for themselves to verify (so images of these things on the moon are just part of the conspiracy). Even if they could, they could still say that the objects being imaged were unmanned or something like that.
Java was a competitor. And Microsoft did what any competitive company would do, oust its competitors.
You know, some people would actually try to release a superior product. In fact, some people might consider what you are describing as essentially gaming the system. And I'm pretty sure there are laws against anti-competivice practices such as you are describing because in the past people gaming the system have had a very negative impact on everyone.
So no matter what Gate's is doing now, we'd all be better off he he'd never been born. And that will always be the case because the cost to society in general was much larger than the billions he made fucking us all over the years.
Let's suppose I wanted to live off the Grid (I do, but not badly enough to move out of the city. ..yet). It would be possible for me to buy/build a windmill of sufficient size to provide enough power for me. What I'd do is build a hydrogen electrolysis plant, and store the hydrogen underground in a pressurized steel tank. Then what I could do is retrofit a generator to burn hydrogen instead of gasoline, and retrofit my car the same way. I'd probably want to take steps to minimize my energy consumption to make it economical, but it could surely be done. I think if I could do it for myself, other people could probably do it too, and we could power society as a whole this way.
The reason we don't is because it costs more, and realistically it requires us to scale back on some things. And let's not forget that human civilization existed for thousands of years while using only wind, water, and mostly solar as our source of power. If we did it before, it must have worked.
Many people hold the belief that science upholds certain ideas about the origin of life when in fact it does not. That is the practical point I am making about the relationship between belief and science. It does not matter that the people promoting this belief are not scientists. In fact, they couldn't be scientists since they do not make an effort to adhere to the principles of scientific investigation. The same could be said for anyone who believes anything without testing it for themselves in a manor consistent with the scientific method.
Slashdot Mirror
The system works as indented.
Someone with mod-points needs to cancel out that troll rating. The parent comment is not a troll.
You seem to be looking at the amount the rails can hold. But if you compare the loaded weight of the aircraft to the maximum takeoff weight, you can see that the A-10 can take off with a bit more ordinance than an F-16, though I wouldn't say it dwarfs it. Look at the armament list on the wikipedia page, you'll see that the A-10 can carry 8 AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles while the F-16 can carry only 6.
It suffers from decimal creep. You can only divide it in half a couple times before you have either a lot of digits, or you have to start rounding. That system is non-sensical. Maybe if it were base 8, or 16 I'd be willing to ditch english units, but as it is you can usually get better numbers with english than with metric. Seriously, why is our numbering system in base 10? The only way it could be worse if it were based on a prime number like 7, or 13 (2 would be better, but the resulting numbers would be too long). How come they didn't change that when they were changing all the measurements to match the base of the number system? It seems like a pretty obvious flaw to me. Also, the article is wrong. Great Britain still uses pounds and gallons and miles per hour. I know because I watch Top Gear.
The point I was originally trying to make is that attack aircraft are designed attack ground targets, while fighter aircraft are designed for air to air. Your post here more or less reinforces the point that an F-16 is not an attack aircraft. Speed does not work to your benefit when you're trying to hit targets on the ground. The A-10 is a straight wing aircraft (slow) which is heavily armored (for an aircraft) and can carry a lot of ordinance. This is ideally what you'd like to see in an aircraft designed to provide close air support for people on the ground. It is not designed strictly as a tank killer, but it is designed strictly to hit targets which are on the ground, which is where you find tanks. The F-16, is much faster (which is not beneficial to an attack aircraft), it doesn't carry as much ordinance, and it can't take as much abuse as an A-10.
You say the Air Force want's to get rid of them, but the Air-Force isn't planning to replace them until at least 2028. That's because they work well in their current role, which is attacking ground targets.
I'm sure there are a lot of countries that have a smaller military and would rather use their fighter aircraft in an attack role. That doesn't mean they're suited for it, it just means they're using what they've got.
Sorry, that was a typo. Their replacement cost is $140 million. I don't think the US would sell F-22s to Canada. But it is a more suitable aircraft for the job.
As an attack aircraft, it is much less effective than one of these even though it is significantly more expensive. Of course, the US is the sole operator of the A-10.
I'm not going to get a 3G tablet, because I'd have to replace it when a 4G version becomes available. ATT and verizon now support tethering. The thing that makes sense right now is getting the WiFi version so that later on when I upgrade my phone I will automatically upgrade my tablet.
You use what you've got. The F-16 was not originally designed for that purpose, and a cost effective attack aircraft it is not.
It's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of helping people find jobs, but is it really that bad of an idea? Any publicity campaign designed to combat unemployment would have been equally absurd given the real difficulties people face when trying to find a job after a period of unemployment. But you may not have noticed because it would have been boring and easy to overlook. I can assure you that people who are unemployed find all this garbage to be annoying and pointless and degrading. It doesn't matter if it's a cape or a brochure with tips on how to find a job, it's all the same nonsense.
They are talking about replacing the A-10 with the F-35 down the road.
I don't usually like to nit-pick, but the F16 is a fighter aircraft, not an attack aircraft (that's what the F stands for). "A" stands for attack (like the A10), that's why you see the newer hornets with the F/A18 label. The distinction is that fighters are intended for air to air combat, while attack aircraft are air to ground.
The obvious difference is the F35B is a carrier launch vehicle, while the F22 is not. Since the US likes to maintain a global military presence, the F22 alone won't cut it. As for the replacement cost, I haven't seen one for the F35 yet, but I wouldn't be surprised is it matches or exceeds the $70 million it costs to replace an F22 (especially the vertical landing version). The aircraft are similar in terms of materials and technologies used, so it should cost about the same to make them. The main reason you'd think an F22 might be more expensive is it is larger and has 2 engines instead of one. But if you really think about it, that doesn't have much to do with the overall cost of a fighter craft these days.
As for your second point, the three variants really do constitute three different aircraft in terms of their capabilities. But using the same general design and the same parts where possible cuts down on the overall development cost. Since they need to upgrade the aircraft used for all three roles, it makes sense to kill three birds with one stone, so to speak.
I'm going to have to agree. I don't know anyone who is planning to get (or is excited about the possibility of getting) a windows phone. Add the fact that many (most) companies are now supporting iOS and Android on their corporate networks, and what you come up with is a market already filled with devices superior to anything Microsoft could offer. No one is going to willingly downgrade to a windows phone.
People need to learn the benefits of diversity personally so that they will seek it out in an individual basis. You can't force them into accepting it (and trying to do so will really only teach them to resent it). Also, people need to learn to look past the harsh words of others so that they can really address what is being said. These are the kinds of things that promote diversity. Trying to accomplish that by overhauling twitter would be like herding casts.
Are the last two paragraphs of your comment intended to be an example of what you are complaining about in the first?
Of course sugar isn't toxic. Next silly question. Then again some people want to label CO2 toxic. Maybe the problem is just that some people are not willing to try to make the distinction between something that can be harmful, must be used responsibly, and something which is toxic, and should be avoided to whatever extent possible (with April 20th approaching, I seem to find myself arguing with these people more and more). Some people prefer to simply ban everything that can be harmful, so that they don't have to think too much about what they're doing.
Or get an unlimited plan.
By using shady business practices to snuff out the competition and cram inferior products down our throats? I don't think so. The fact that there were competitors to snuff out means that they weren't the only game in town. So it's not true when you say they "take computers away from being an elitist geek hobby".
Do you think the goal of the economy is to make sure that the most unscrupulous sociopaths imaginable end up being in charge? I think I learned something about "allocating resources" or something like that in economics. I guess the world is what you make of it. You must be a very strange person, if this is what you want for yourself. I would say that it may be better to stand up to people like Billy-G, but if you would rather bow down before him, that's cool. I mean, someone must have been buying all his shit software for all those years, right?
The problem with that is people can't orbit a telescope around the moon for themselves to verify (so images of these things on the moon are just part of the conspiracy). Even if they could, they could still say that the objects being imaged were unmanned or something like that.
You know, some people would actually try to release a superior product. In fact, some people might consider what you are describing as essentially gaming the system. And I'm pretty sure there are laws against anti-competivice practices such as you are describing because in the past people gaming the system have had a very negative impact on everyone.
So no matter what Gate's is doing now, we'd all be better off he he'd never been born. And that will always be the case because the cost to society in general was much larger than the billions he made fucking us all over the years.
Let's suppose I wanted to live off the Grid (I do, but not badly enough to move out of the city. . .yet). It would be possible for me to buy/build a windmill of sufficient size to provide enough power for me. What I'd do is build a hydrogen electrolysis plant, and store the hydrogen underground in a pressurized steel tank. Then what I could do is retrofit a generator to burn hydrogen instead of gasoline, and retrofit my car the same way. I'd probably want to take steps to minimize my energy consumption to make it economical, but it could surely be done. I think if I could do it for myself, other people could probably do it too, and we could power society as a whole this way.
The reason we don't is because it costs more, and realistically it requires us to scale back on some things. And let's not forget that human civilization existed for thousands of years while using only wind, water, and mostly solar as our source of power. If we did it before, it must have worked.
Perhaps not, but you could at least do a little research before posting your ignorant opinions all over the internet.
I jest. Proceed.
Many people hold the belief that science upholds certain ideas about the origin of life when in fact it does not. That is the practical point I am making about the relationship between belief and science. It does not matter that the people promoting this belief are not scientists. In fact, they couldn't be scientists since they do not make an effort to adhere to the principles of scientific investigation. The same could be said for anyone who believes anything without testing it for themselves in a manor consistent with the scientific method.