If [third parties] weren't lesser choices, they would get way more votes than they currently do, regardless of any funding differences.
Maybe. However, I've seen people who are accustomed to making one of two choices not even consider the possibility of a third option, so I'm not entirely sure that the fact that no one (or at least, not a significant number of people, anyway) ignore third party choices necessarily proves that the third party choices aren't better. "Devil you know vs. devil you don't know," and all that.
'Kay, we've eliminated the possibility of ignorance from your earlier replies. That leaves "troll" or "intentionally disingenuous." I'm not inclined to try to figure out which one you are, so I'm done here.
Then don't vote for either of the two parties. Vote for a whacko third party -- Libertarian, Green, Communist even. Just send the message that "business as usual" doesn't cut it anymore. Even the worst third party can't screw things up any worse than the R/D's have.
I don't know if you're trolling, intentionally disingenuous or just misinformed, so I'll assume the latter. Nevertheless, it might be a good idea to actually visit here before trying to tell my why I'm wrong about the place I've lived for over twenty years.
That is absurd. It wasn't the US government that decided that people should build a village in an area so remote that it was impractical to build a road that would be passable in the winter. The people who live there decided that they wanted to live in a place that's inaccessible. You can't blame the government for that. (Well, you can blame them, but you can't expect such absurd blaming to go without response.)
Ummm...you do realize that most of the peoples on the west coast of Alaska have lived there for longer than there even has been a United States government, don't you?
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever.
The degree of security depends upon the airport and the type of operation being conducted. If you are flying with a Part 135 (air taxi) operator out of smaller airports, no, there is not much security. However, even the Part 141 (scheduled air carriers, i.e., airlines) fly into some surprisingly small airports. For example, Iliamna is off the road system, and IIRC, it does have airport security. Again, as I stated with the Bethel example, there is essentially no way in or out of Iliamna except by airplane. Furthermore, maybe you haven't been keeping tabs, but TSA has tried twice (so far) to expand the scope of airport security to include smaller operators and smaller airplanes. So far, there has been enough public outcry to prevent this, but then again, I never expected that we would see the crap we currently see at the airports.
The only precautions were to ensure that the person taking the plane out was the plane's owner. You didn't have to show a pilot's license and nobody cared who might be along for a ride.
If you are talking about non-commercial services, then yes, you are correct. In some cases, there is even less security than you mention. I own an airplane based at Merrill Field here in Anchorage, and the only thing you need to get in my airplane and fly away is the key to remove the prop lock (and a good deal of luck -- the Rotax 503 powering it is a cranky, temperamental POS). However, the myth that everyone in Alaska owns an airplane and/or has access to a private airplane is exactly that -- a myth. One in ten people here are pilots, but a good number of them don't own airplanes. A good number of those that do, don't own airplanes that are currently airworthy; it's expensive to own an airplane (mine isn't, for example).
Furthermore, if you think a private plane is an acceptable substitute for an airliner, then you have absolutely no idea of the scale of Alaska nor the difficulty of crossing the state in a small airplane. Summers up here are often rainy with low overcast skies. Couple that with the majority of the state covered with some really freaking huge mountain ranges (you do know that nine of the sixteen highest peaks in North America are in Alaska, don't you?), and it's not a trivial matter to cross the state in a small airplane. Filing IFR often isn't a possibility because of icing, even in the summer. In the winter, things are even more difficult due to limited daylight hours and extreme temperatures (most Cessnas aren't designed to fly at -20F or less, even though it *can* be done).
So if Alaska is anything like the other states I've lived in, it's perfectly possible for people living in outlying villages to hitch a ride to town and from there
I've alreadypetitioned mycongresscritters and the Whitehouse as well as filing a complaint with TSA itself (no link for that). In addition, I have decided to boycott air travel until this nonsense stops, and I've started the blog that all these links point to so I can share information about what is going on at the airports. I'm not yet ready to take up arms and start an insurrection, but if you've got some constructive ideas that fall between what I've done so far (petitions, blogging, voting and hitting the airlines in the pocketbook) and armed rebellion, I'm all ears.
If, on the other hand, all you want to do is mouth off to people you disagree with, then kindly STFU, please.
If you've got a solution for travel for the 5,000 or so residents of this little town (or the more or less equivalent number of people in the surrounding communities -- and no, this is not unusual up here in Alaska), I'd love to hear about it. "Not driving" isn't a much better option for me either, although it is at least possible...it would just take my entire two weeks of leave getting anywhere I might want to go and back, with no time to actually do anything once I arrive. That makes at least a half million of us for whom "Just drive instead!" isn't a viable option.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this: "Terrorist" hijacks an airplane Everyone sits tight and does what they are told. Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever). Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
Sigh...THIS IS NOT A LEFT VS. RIGHT THING! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT VS. THE PEOPLE THING!
As long as the populace wants to blame a Republican or a Democrat, we won't see any change. Both Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the mockery the U.S. has become since 9/11. They are two sides of the same coin. No matter which side is face up when the coin hits the table, you and I lose. It's time to vote EVERYBODY out of office and start over!
I'm sure there are more, but that should be enough to prove that no, the powers-that-be aren't limiting violations of the 4th Amendment to the airports.
Easy solution for that, then. This November, everybody vote for someone *other* than the guy/gal currently in office. I couldn't care less if you elect a Republican to replace the Democrat or a Democrat to replace the Republican (although I think it would really drive the message home to see a few fringe parties score a seat or two in Congress). That's what I intend to do, anyway.
No, but it *does* grant the right to travel. I live in Alaska. Granted, I live in Anchorage which is connected to the lower-48 by highways. However, my job provides services to a village called Bethel (and a couple dozen surrounding villages) which are only accessible by air (or dog team, *if* it's winter and you've got two weeks to get where you're going). Therefore, in effect, by denying access to the airlines without a search, you have essentially denied the right of travel without forfeiting your right to be free from searches to at least a quarter of the residents of the state.
He doesn't say, but I assume he means depress, then release, the brake. Otherwise, you would be correct -- you'd exceed the maximum traction available to the front wheels and continue traveling straight ahead. However, if you brake then release before steering (maybe brake, steer, release brake?) you'll maximize your steering performance...but I'd want to practice it before using it in the real world.
No, it definitely isn't. My dad used to have a Dodge Ram that turned ABS on when it was in 4WD and turned it off when it was in 2WD (don't ask me; I didn't design the system). I could consistently stop in less distance in 2WD than in 4WD in that truck by pumping the brake (it's a matter of weight shift and the suspension compressing, providing more traction on the front tires; ABS cycles too fast for that to have much effect).
Formalin is correct: ABS was designed to maintain directional control of the car, even if the straight-line stopping distance isn't quite as good.
My guess would be that drivers' ed instructors want you to learn to do the best you can to maintain some semblance of control for as long as you can. I drive on snow and ice for roughly half the year, and even when the car is skidding on ice, you almost always still have some degree of control over the vehicle. By steering and manipulating the gas/clutch/brake as appropriate, you can still guide the car away from obstacles, even if you aren't truly "in control" of the vehicle.
Case in point, I slid on a downhill grade a couple of years ago. There were cars on each side of the road for about a quarter mile, while I was braking, trying to get my truck to stop (I was doing all of *maybe* 25mph, but the truck wouldn't even slow down a little on the wet ice). Finally, I reached the do-or-die point: two cars had collided ahead of me, blocking the road. Fortunately, even though I couldn't slow down, I *could* steer the car onto a side road where I slid into a snow bank and stopped. When I backed out of the snow bank and stopped the car, it started skidding downhill again, so I guided it onto the shoulder and left it there until the gravel trucks came by. Had I just "given up" and put my hands on top of my head, my daughter and I would've collided with the cars abandoned in the middle of the road.
I have driven a manual transmission almost since getting my license (circa '87), and I *ALWAYS* drive with my right hand on the gear stick. I have yet to have gear damage be a factor in any car I've owned*, and I'm not one to own a car for a couple of years and upgrade. I've worn out clutches, brakes, and just about everything else, but the transmission itself? Never.
*Okay, my first Eagle Talon needed a new transmission, but that was maybe three months after I bought it, and it had obviously been used hard before I got it. I drove it for another ten years or so before I sold it without any additional transmission problems.
I hydroplaned in a rainstorm on a highway once, and ended up in the grass median between my lane and the oncoming lane, facing the direction I had just come from. Spinning into the median didn't *break* my thumb, but it was pretty sore for a week or two.
I agree that all of those are valid reasons for manufacturers not to build a swing-wing airliner. However, and perhaps I was reading to much into the post, it sounded to me like Chuckstar didn't trust a swing-wing design, not that he thought it would be too costly and inefficient to use in commercial air service:
I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.[emphasis -- and additional emphasis -- mine]
My point is that if an F-111 or B-1B can survive combat, they certainly can survive commercial service.
I did not say that it was economical, efficient, or even a good idea to build a swing-wing airliner. I said that concerns about structural integrity was not a reason to avoid swing-wing aircraft.
I come from a strongly military background. My dad joined the Air Force when I was three; I grew up on military bases. My brother-in-law is Air National Guard, as is my brother. Both have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. I have two nephews who have also seen action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and my cousin recently joined the Army as well. Consequently, it's safe to say that I've had plenty of discussions on the use of military power and the ethics of doing so. Of them all, my brother is the only one who isn't completely polarized into an "us-or-them" mindset. My brother-in-law made the statement, "You can never go too far protecting our country." I stopped discussing things with him at that point, because if you are starting with the point of view that you can never go too far, then you've already stated that you don't object to waterboarding, suspending habeus corpus, or ignoring due process when you are fighting the "bad guys." I mean, they were arrested for a reason, so anything we do to get intel that keeps our guys alive is acceptable, right?
Unfortunately, what is acceptable on the battlefield often is NOT acceptable elsewhere. I might be okay with a soldier in a war zone shooting back at the guy who is shooting at him, but I am a lot less okay with a Predator or Reaper zone killing everyone in the house where the decision makers think a suspected terrorist or insurgent might -- maybe -- be hiding. And I am even less okay with the powers that be deciding to assassinate an American citizen overseas with a drone because of his suspected ties to a terrorist organization without him actually being tried and convicted of anything. </rant>
Meh. I worked at NSA for about a year back in the '80s, and I have read "Puzzle Palace." Quite frankly, "Puzzle Palace" was very sensationalist. For example, I remember reading about the electric fence around FanX (IIRC). I spent a couple of months working at FanX while waiting for my clearances to come through so I could actually start doing what I was hired to do. Guess what? FanX was surrounded by barbed-wire fence, but there was no electric fence there. The history of NSA in the book was interesting, but Bamford exaggerated a bit in his descriptions of what it was actually like there. "Puzzle Palace" was more Nancy Grace than Peter Jennings.
On the flip side, my year at NSA made me very skeptical of a lot of things I heard prior to 2004. Where I worked, we had signs posted everywhere reminding people that it was illegal (by Executive Order) for NSA to spy on Americans. We were chartered for the purpose of foreign surveillance, so Americans were off-limits. Then came the revelation of NSA wiretapping at AT&T and other telcos. Sigh. I'm just glad I don't work there anymore.
Okay, the first half of your post was funny...but is this reading-comprehension-fail-day on/.? No, there was no whooshing noise over my head. I understood the joke that the "sonic boom" was the sound of the airplane crashing ("Boom!" ha ha). My point was that WWI biplanes don't approach anything even vaguely resembling the speed of sound. WWI biplanes come apart in the air at speeds that I have achieved in the low-end Cessnas* in which I learned to fly -- which is a far, far cry from the speed of sound.
*Granted, not in level flight, and I was approaching red-line speed, but flying short-final at near Vne was a lot better than getting run over by the 747 that was breathing down my neck.
I agree that all of those are valid reasons for manufacturers not to build a swing-wing airliner. However, and perhaps I was reading to much into the post, it sounded to me like Chuckstar didn't trust a swing-wing design, not that he thought it would be too costly and inefficient to use in commercial air service:
I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.[emphasis mine]
My point is that if an F-111 or B-1B can survive combat, they certainly can survive commercial service.
Slashdot Mirror
If [third parties] weren't lesser choices, they would get way more votes than they currently do, regardless of any funding differences.
Maybe. However, I've seen people who are accustomed to making one of two choices not even consider the possibility of a third option, so I'm not entirely sure that the fact that no one (or at least, not a significant number of people, anyway) ignore third party choices necessarily proves that the third party choices aren't better. "Devil you know vs. devil you don't know," and all that.
'Kay, we've eliminated the possibility of ignorance from your earlier replies. That leaves "troll" or "intentionally disingenuous." I'm not inclined to try to figure out which one you are, so I'm done here.
Then don't vote for either of the two parties. Vote for a whacko third party -- Libertarian, Green, Communist even. Just send the message that "business as usual" doesn't cut it anymore. Even the worst third party can't screw things up any worse than the R/D's have.
That is absurd. It wasn't the US government that decided that people should build a village in an area so remote that it was impractical to build a road that would be passable in the winter. The people who live there decided that they wanted to live in a place that's inaccessible. You can't blame the government for that. (Well, you can blame them, but you can't expect such absurd blaming to go without response.)
Ummm...you do realize that most of the peoples on the west coast of Alaska have lived there for longer than there even has been a United States government, don't you?
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever.
The degree of security depends upon the airport and the type of operation being conducted. If you are flying with a Part 135 (air taxi) operator out of smaller airports, no, there is not much security. However, even the Part 141 (scheduled air carriers, i.e., airlines) fly into some surprisingly small airports. For example, Iliamna is off the road system, and IIRC, it does have airport security. Again, as I stated with the Bethel example, there is essentially no way in or out of Iliamna except by airplane. Furthermore, maybe you haven't been keeping tabs, but TSA has tried twice (so far) to expand the scope of airport security to include smaller operators and smaller airplanes. So far, there has been enough public outcry to prevent this, but then again, I never expected that we would see the crap we currently see at the airports.
The only precautions were to ensure that the person taking the plane out was the plane's owner. You didn't have to show a pilot's license and nobody cared who might be along for a ride.
If you are talking about non-commercial services, then yes, you are correct. In some cases, there is even less security than you mention. I own an airplane based at Merrill Field here in Anchorage, and the only thing you need to get in my airplane and fly away is the key to remove the prop lock (and a good deal of luck -- the Rotax 503 powering it is a cranky, temperamental POS). However, the myth that everyone in Alaska owns an airplane and/or has access to a private airplane is exactly that -- a myth. One in ten people here are pilots, but a good number of them don't own airplanes. A good number of those that do, don't own airplanes that are currently airworthy; it's expensive to own an airplane (mine isn't, for example).
Furthermore, if you think a private plane is an acceptable substitute for an airliner, then you have absolutely no idea of the scale of Alaska nor the difficulty of crossing the state in a small airplane. Summers up here are often rainy with low overcast skies. Couple that with the majority of the state covered with some really freaking huge mountain ranges (you do know that nine of the sixteen highest peaks in North America are in Alaska, don't you?), and it's not a trivial matter to cross the state in a small airplane. Filing IFR often isn't a possibility because of icing, even in the summer. In the winter, things are even more difficult due to limited daylight hours and extreme temperatures (most Cessnas aren't designed to fly at -20F or less, even though it *can* be done).
So if Alaska is anything like the other states I've lived in, it's perfectly possible for people living in outlying villages to hitch a ride to town and from there
I've already petitioned my congresscritters and the Whitehouse as well as filing a complaint with TSA itself (no link for that). In addition, I have decided to boycott air travel until this nonsense stops, and I've started the blog that all these links point to so I can share information about what is going on at the airports. I'm not yet ready to take up arms and start an insurrection, but if you've got some constructive ideas that fall between what I've done so far (petitions, blogging, voting and hitting the airlines in the pocketbook) and armed rebellion, I'm all ears.
If, on the other hand, all you want to do is mouth off to people you disagree with, then kindly STFU, please.
Not to mention this:
How do you drive anywhere from here?
If you've got a solution for travel for the 5,000 or so residents of this little town (or the more or less equivalent number of people in the surrounding communities -- and no, this is not unusual up here in Alaska), I'd love to hear about it. "Not driving" isn't a much better option for me either, although it is at least possible...it would just take my entire two weeks of leave getting anywhere I might want to go and back, with no time to actually do anything once I arrive. That makes at least a half million of us for whom "Just drive instead!" isn't a viable option.
I get so tired of hearing this tripe.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this:
"Terrorist" hijacks an airplane
Everyone sits tight and does what they are told.
Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever).
Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
Sigh... THIS IS NOT A LEFT VS. RIGHT THING! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT VS. THE PEOPLE THING!
As long as the populace wants to blame a Republican or a Democrat, we won't see any change. Both Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the mockery the U.S. has become since 9/11. They are two sides of the same coin. No matter which side is face up when the coin hits the table, you and I lose. It's time to vote EVERYBODY out of office and start over!
Yes, they are. Here are the citations for those so inclined:
NYPD wanting to run scanners on the streets of New York
TSA searching cars pulling up to the loading/unloading ramp at an airport
VIPR search in a train station
Another VIPR search at a train station
Stopping commercial vehicles on a highway in Arizona
Searches at a bus station
I'm sure there are more, but that should be enough to prove that no, the powers-that-be aren't limiting violations of the 4th Amendment to the airports.
Easy solution for that, then. This November, everybody vote for someone *other* than the guy/gal currently in office. I couldn't care less if you elect a Republican to replace the Democrat or a Democrat to replace the Republican (although I think it would really drive the message home to see a few fringe parties score a seat or two in Congress). That's what I intend to do, anyway.
No, but it *does* grant the right to travel. I live in Alaska. Granted, I live in Anchorage which is connected to the lower-48 by highways. However, my job provides services to a village called Bethel (and a couple dozen surrounding villages) which are only accessible by air (or dog team, *if* it's winter and you've got two weeks to get where you're going). Therefore, in effect, by denying access to the airlines without a search, you have essentially denied the right of travel without forfeiting your right to be free from searches to at least a quarter of the residents of the state.
He doesn't say, but I assume he means depress, then release, the brake. Otherwise, you would be correct -- you'd exceed the maximum traction available to the front wheels and continue traveling straight ahead. However, if you brake then release before steering (maybe brake, steer, release brake?) you'll maximize your steering performance...but I'd want to practice it before using it in the real world.
No, it definitely isn't. My dad used to have a Dodge Ram that turned ABS on when it was in 4WD and turned it off when it was in 2WD (don't ask me; I didn't design the system). I could consistently stop in less distance in 2WD than in 4WD in that truck by pumping the brake (it's a matter of weight shift and the suspension compressing, providing more traction on the front tires; ABS cycles too fast for that to have much effect).
Formalin is correct: ABS was designed to maintain directional control of the car, even if the straight-line stopping distance isn't quite as good.
My guess would be that drivers' ed instructors want you to learn to do the best you can to maintain some semblance of control for as long as you can. I drive on snow and ice for roughly half the year, and even when the car is skidding on ice, you almost always still have some degree of control over the vehicle. By steering and manipulating the gas/clutch/brake as appropriate, you can still guide the car away from obstacles, even if you aren't truly "in control" of the vehicle.
Case in point, I slid on a downhill grade a couple of years ago. There were cars on each side of the road for about a quarter mile, while I was braking, trying to get my truck to stop (I was doing all of *maybe* 25mph, but the truck wouldn't even slow down a little on the wet ice). Finally, I reached the do-or-die point: two cars had collided ahead of me, blocking the road. Fortunately, even though I couldn't slow down, I *could* steer the car onto a side road where I slid into a snow bank and stopped. When I backed out of the snow bank and stopped the car, it started skidding downhill again, so I guided it onto the shoulder and left it there until the gravel trucks came by. Had I just "given up" and put my hands on top of my head, my daughter and I would've collided with the cars abandoned in the middle of the road.
...or trying to slip up the skirt of some babe sitting next to me.
Shouldn't be too difficult...latex dolls don't typically fight back :P
I have driven a manual transmission almost since getting my license (circa '87), and I *ALWAYS* drive with my right hand on the gear stick. I have yet to have gear damage be a factor in any car I've owned*, and I'm not one to own a car for a couple of years and upgrade. I've worn out clutches, brakes, and just about everything else, but the transmission itself? Never.
*Okay, my first Eagle Talon needed a new transmission, but that was maybe three months after I bought it, and it had obviously been used hard before I got it. I drove it for another ten years or so before I sold it without any additional transmission problems.
+1
I hydroplaned in a rainstorm on a highway once, and ended up in the grass median between my lane and the oncoming lane, facing the direction I had just come from. Spinning into the median didn't *break* my thumb, but it was pretty sore for a week or two.
Read it again. He said his hands hit the window, not his feats! :P
I agree that all of those are valid reasons for manufacturers not to build a swing-wing airliner. However, and perhaps I was reading to much into the post, it sounded to me like Chuckstar didn't trust a swing-wing design, not that he thought it would be too costly and inefficient to use in commercial air service:
I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.[emphasis -- and additional emphasis -- mine]
My point is that if an F-111 or B-1B can survive combat, they certainly can survive commercial service.
I did not say that it was economical, efficient, or even a good idea to build a swing-wing airliner. I said that concerns about structural integrity was not a reason to avoid swing-wing aircraft.
^^THIS!^^
I come from a strongly military background. My dad joined the Air Force when I was three; I grew up on military bases. My brother-in-law is Air National Guard, as is my brother. Both have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. I have two nephews who have also seen action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and my cousin recently joined the Army as well. Consequently, it's safe to say that I've had plenty of discussions on the use of military power and the ethics of doing so. Of them all, my brother is the only one who isn't completely polarized into an "us-or-them" mindset. My brother-in-law made the statement, "You can never go too far protecting our country." I stopped discussing things with him at that point, because if you are starting with the point of view that you can never go too far, then you've already stated that you don't object to waterboarding, suspending habeus corpus, or ignoring due process when you are fighting the "bad guys." I mean, they were arrested for a reason, so anything we do to get intel that keeps our guys alive is acceptable, right?
Unfortunately, what is acceptable on the battlefield often is NOT acceptable elsewhere. I might be okay with a soldier in a war zone shooting back at the guy who is shooting at him, but I am a lot less okay with a Predator or Reaper zone killing everyone in the house where the decision makers think a suspected terrorist or insurgent might -- maybe -- be hiding. And I am even less okay with the powers that be deciding to assassinate an American citizen overseas with a drone because of his suspected ties to a terrorist organization without him actually being tried and convicted of anything. </rant>
Meh. I worked at NSA for about a year back in the '80s, and I have read "Puzzle Palace." Quite frankly, "Puzzle Palace" was very sensationalist. For example, I remember reading about the electric fence around FanX (IIRC). I spent a couple of months working at FanX while waiting for my clearances to come through so I could actually start doing what I was hired to do. Guess what? FanX was surrounded by barbed-wire fence, but there was no electric fence there. The history of NSA in the book was interesting, but Bamford exaggerated a bit in his descriptions of what it was actually like there. "Puzzle Palace" was more Nancy Grace than Peter Jennings.
On the flip side, my year at NSA made me very skeptical of a lot of things I heard prior to 2004. Where I worked, we had signs posted everywhere reminding people that it was illegal (by Executive Order) for NSA to spy on Americans. We were chartered for the purpose of foreign surveillance, so Americans were off-limits. Then came the revelation of NSA wiretapping at AT&T and other telcos. Sigh. I'm just glad I don't work there anymore.
LOL. Good luck with the deadlines!
By the way...sorry to be grouchy earlier
Okay, the first half of your post was funny...but is this reading-comprehension-fail-day on /.? No, there was no whooshing noise over my head. I understood the joke that the "sonic boom" was the sound of the airplane crashing ("Boom!" ha ha). My point was that WWI biplanes don't approach anything even vaguely resembling the speed of sound. WWI biplanes come apart in the air at speeds that I have achieved in the low-end Cessnas* in which I learned to fly -- which is a far, far cry from the speed of sound.
*Granted, not in level flight, and I was approaching red-line speed, but flying short-final at near Vne was a lot better than getting run over by the 747 that was breathing down my neck.
I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.[emphasis mine]
My point is that if an F-111 or B-1B can survive combat, they certainly can survive commercial service.
Sure, but it's still in service today, which is all I said above.