These aren't cell phone cameras we're talking about here. One of the reasons the CIA has sort of grudgingly continued U-2 flights in lieu of the RQ-4 is the latter doesn't have enough payload (along with other considerations, like price).
What we should do is execute people by running them over with expensive German luxury cars. Enough with the cheap grace - let's find out if Germany is willing to pay a non-inconsequential price for its principles.
We moved away from firing squads because for particularly heinous crimes the executioners were deliberately shooting to wound instead of kill. I support capital punishment, but I think it should be as quick and painless as possible.
I'm well aware of France's activities in Africa. Why do you assume you know more than I do on that score? The difference between us is I know something about the Chinese capability and you clearly don't.
Your "point" is wrong. You are both grossly underestimating China's reach and overestimating that of the European former powers. China could absolutely bring more power to bear in African than France.
Did you just wake up from a twenty year nap? China's carrier, which is an upgraded version of the Soviet Kuznetsov class weighing in at around 65k tons, is more capable than either France's tiny Charles de Gaulle (40k tons) or the UK's even tinier Illustrious (20k tons), which doesn't even have an air wing.
China has alread laid the keel of a second carrier and intends to build a third. Both of the second two carriers will be in the 100k ton range and will include CATOBAR systems, meaning they can maintain a operational tempo impossible for the other ships. On paper, at least, they're a match for the latest US carriers. The UK is supposed to be building two new carriers in the 70k ton range, but I doubt the second one will ever be built, and in any case they're the "ski jump" variety, meaning they're no match for what China is building.
The Chinese navy would sweep the French and British navy from the seas if push came to shove, and the gap is increasing over time. It's true China doesn't have the logistics capability to sustain military operations far from its shores, but neither do the Europeans.
It's another story when you start talking about the later books (after 2003) that said "by Tom Clancy" in gigantic type, and "with so-and-so" in little type. In other words, books not really written by Clancy. Why a successful author would do that is beyond me.
Money, of course, particularly if he didn't write because he wasn't well. If you don't intend to write again, there's really no downside.
As you get older every system in your body suffers some degree of degradation. We know people suffer cognitive decline starting in their 40s, so it's really no surprise people over 65 don't display the same ability to make intelligent choices they did when they were younger.
When most of the country doesn't have fiber, does it really make sense for providers to split a relatively small market like Austin? I mean, if I'm running AT&T and Google announces a rollout in Austin, I'll do my initial rollout in, I dunno, Dallas (assuming Dallas doesn't already have fiber). I don't see any reason to actually compete until all the higher density areas have at least one provider.
The problem I have with that is we're using natural gas like never before, and just at a time when the price of helium is too low to make recovery economical. So an element that's literally irreplaceable is being discarded because the price is being artificially depressed by the government.
How much contact have you really had with the NHS? People I know in the UK who've actually had nontrivial health problems (back surgery and heart problems) weren't happy with it at all. One guy described it as "third world quality". I get that the NHS has its fans, but mostly when I ask why what I hear is "when I have a sore throat I just show up and flash my card".
One problem in American healthcare is that, despite designs to the contrary, there is little intelligence or justification behind capital equipment purchases. That is, a hospital is going to buy and use an MRI machine whether there is sufficient medical demand for it or not.
I don't see how a hospital that provides emergency services can get around having an MRI machine. I don't think "We'd love to see what's going on with your child's brain as a result of the crash, but we thought buying an MRI machine would be a waste of helium" is really going to fly.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet the U-2 is still flying. The reality is the SR-71 was retired because it was too expensive to operate.
You see them as deluded fools because you're deluded fools.
Not actually true in practice.
These aren't cell phone cameras we're talking about here. One of the reasons the CIA has sort of grudgingly continued U-2 flights in lieu of the RQ-4 is the latter doesn't have enough payload (along with other considerations, like price).
What we should do is execute people by running them over with expensive German luxury cars. Enough with the cheap grace - let's find out if Germany is willing to pay a non-inconsequential price for its principles.
We moved away from firing squads because for particularly heinous crimes the executioners were deliberately shooting to wound instead of kill. I support capital punishment, but I think it should be as quick and painless as possible.
So... not happening, then.
You think that because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Or start withholding the latest cancer drugs from Germany.
I'm well aware of France's activities in Africa. Why do you assume you know more than I do on that score? The difference between us is I know something about the Chinese capability and you clearly don't.
The most charitable thing I can think is you developed a view of the strategic situation and you just haven't kept up to date with reality.
But based on what you write I'm thinking it's more likely you're just an idiot.
Your "point" is wrong. You are both grossly underestimating China's reach and overestimating that of the European former powers. China could absolutely bring more power to bear in African than France.
I wouldn't call that a major operation at all.
The French were only able to operate in Libya because the US provided logistical support.
Did you just wake up from a twenty year nap? China's carrier, which is an upgraded version of the Soviet Kuznetsov class weighing in at around 65k tons, is more capable than either France's tiny Charles de Gaulle (40k tons) or the UK's even tinier Illustrious (20k tons), which doesn't even have an air wing.
China has alread laid the keel of a second carrier and intends to build a third. Both of the second two carriers will be in the 100k ton range and will include CATOBAR systems, meaning they can maintain a operational tempo impossible for the other ships. On paper, at least, they're a match for the latest US carriers. The UK is supposed to be building two new carriers in the 70k ton range, but I doubt the second one will ever be built, and in any case they're the "ski jump" variety, meaning they're no match for what China is building.
The Chinese navy would sweep the French and British navy from the seas if push came to shove, and the gap is increasing over time. It's true China doesn't have the logistics capability to sustain military operations far from its shores, but neither do the Europeans.
I don't think that has anything to do with Israel. North Korea has proven nuclear weapons are the last defense of the pariah state.
Yep
Money, of course, particularly if he didn't write because he wasn't well. If you don't intend to write again, there's really no downside.
Okay, maybe not Dallas. But is Austin so singular that getting half of that market is worth more than the entire market somewhere else?
As you get older every system in your body suffers some degree of degradation. We know people suffer cognitive decline starting in their 40s, so it's really no surprise people over 65 don't display the same ability to make intelligent choices they did when they were younger.
When most of the country doesn't have fiber, does it really make sense for providers to split a relatively small market like Austin? I mean, if I'm running AT&T and Google announces a rollout in Austin, I'll do my initial rollout in, I dunno, Dallas (assuming Dallas doesn't already have fiber). I don't see any reason to actually compete until all the higher density areas have at least one provider.
The problem I have with that is we're using natural gas like never before, and just at a time when the price of helium is too low to make recovery economical. So an element that's literally irreplaceable is being discarded because the price is being artificially depressed by the government.
How much contact have you really had with the NHS? People I know in the UK who've actually had nontrivial health problems (back surgery and heart problems) weren't happy with it at all. One guy described it as "third world quality". I get that the NHS has its fans, but mostly when I ask why what I hear is "when I have a sore throat I just show up and flash my card".
I don't see how a hospital that provides emergency services can get around having an MRI machine. I don't think "We'd love to see what's going on with your child's brain as a result of the crash, but we thought buying an MRI machine would be a waste of helium" is really going to fly.
Is that because they can't launch more often or because they can't find customers?