That day SHOULD have been back in 2000.
It was pretty clear by then that the electronic voting methods we chose were terrible and easily manipulated....not that it mattered that time since the Supreme Court chose the president instead of voters that year. Still, that election should have been a giant red flag to everyone that our process is completely broken, but now 16 years later we've done nothing to fix it, and so we get the election process we deserve I suppose. Too bad that what we really deserve is to be wiped off the planet, but hey, it is what it is, and we get what we get.

you know that guy in the electronics videos that always accidentally zaps himself. this guy is the same but for dangerous animals

So, something I recently learned that might apply here; many electronic video recording devices (like, your phone)---automatically modulate the recording volume---meaning that these videos of suppressed weapons don't actually give you a real sense of how loud they are---they make it seem quieter.

Your video, Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 15 Badge!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'election, vote, computer, tampering, rig' to 'election, vote, computer, tampering, rig, voting machine, electronic voting' - edited by notarobot

No surprise at all. There's been 0% confidence in election results since the day we switched to 'electronic voting machines'.
Tampering with them is easy and simple. Seeing the tampering is incredibly difficult. Proving the tampering is nearly impossible. Doing anything about a stolen election is absolutely impossible after the fact.

It sure sounds like this is probably one of the methods used to help Bush steal the election from Gore.
What do you know, we finally have some evidence of voter fraud...perpetrated by the Republicans and having nothing to do with voters committing fraud. Unfortunately, the Republicans won't be worried or surprised by THIS voter fraud and won't do a thing about it, because the companies that make and certify the machines are all owned by Republicans.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a while ago on another thread, but that still doesn't answer why you think being one precludes being the other. ;-)
EDIT: I hope you notice that I didn't actually CALL you either a pig or Palin, I simply asked if you were either (or both). ;-)

1)all we have are test results showing how they failed multiple tests of it's required capabilities, and other reports saying the military changed the test requirements after the fact to turn those 'fails' into 'barely passed the tests'.
2) mostly, yes. Not 100%. For the most part, the general media does not have a real understanding of anything they 'report'.
3) I'm making claims about it becoming obsolete in <10 years, not repeating any media claim, based on past lifespans of electronic secrets. It's more prone to obsolesce than previous planes because it's main, and really only 'claim to fame' (as you've repeatedly said) are it's electronics, both stealth and targeting, and when those are 'gone' it's a flying golden pig. I think giving it 10 years is really being quite generous, secrets rarely last that long these days.

I got to try one at an Electronics Boutique, a store that used to be around before Gamestop bought all game stores.

*promote punctuation

Not quite a phalanx cannon, but still nice and scary.
So helicopters have different vulnerabilities. They can hide better from electronics and stay out of range of many identified targets, but are far more vulnerable to all kinds of ground fire, including small arms.
Nice, so basically a small aircraft mounted cruise missile.

Overpriced? Definitely. But turd? no chance. F-35's would be covering other F-35's. In the unlikely case of someone getting in that close. As soon as an enemy plane (somehow magically gets by all defenses and sensors) pops up behind a fellow pilot, they'd be getting shot down by another F-35.

You might have a valid point with the electronic warfare, but it comes with it's own disadvantages. For example as soon as someone starts jamming, they appear hostile (or atleast "unknown")to even their own friendly forces. So it has to be used appropriately. Jamming also only works at certain ranges, and once you are close enough there are ways to get around it.
Jamming also means that you're broadcasting your own position. It definitely makes things harder for the enemy, but it's not a show stopper.

Continuing the sniper analogy. If for some reason the sniper was alone and not part of a combined force, and someone did sneak up on him with a sword then he might be in trouble. Yet do you see snipers being trained with swords in the military? No, because it's so unlikely to happen. But still they carry a knife just in case. As does the F-35. Missiles that shoot almost backwards and a cannon in case sensors fail.


These 40 year old pieces of shit you are talking about are flying at the limits of physics for human pilots by the way

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

Versatility is great, but I think they tried to do everything and failed to do anything well. Having multiple skills is different from trying to be a Jack of ALL trades.

Personally, I much prefer bulletproof to 'invisible', since there's no such thing as invisible, just hard to see.

Again, that's the plan, but it can't do that today. When acting as 'close air support', it is visible and in danger from ground and directed air fire, going slow, and is slow to get going fast again. Also, close air support is not just dropping bombs, that's more medium-long range.

No, the F-35 is the worst plane for 'full air superiority' because it's far too expensive, and we won't have enough of them to control the smallest skies for years/decades, and even then they'll be to valuable to use that way.

Yes, it seems like insane overkill to be electronically invisible to fight against people who barely have electricity. Even against the most advanced ground to air systems, our current planes were doing fine. I don't see the need for this in the foreseeable future, just the desire for better, more expensive toys.

Acceleration is a big factor if you're doing any evasive maneuvering, because turning scrubs speed and you have to gain it back, preferably fast. It's not everything, but it matters.

Don't get me wrong, I do admit there are interesting, possibly unique, even useful features of the F-35, I just don't see any need for it, and certainly not at the price. When was the last time an American was shot down in a jet fighter?

My main issue with this plane is that it's sold as a replacement to nearly ALL other planes, which it had to be because of it's price tag. It doesn't do most of it's 'jobs' as well as the planes it replaces, is incredibly more expensive than they are, and they weren't in need of replacement in the first place, so why did we have this $1.3 trillion poorly performing jobs program for the aerospace industry during an economic crisis? We had much better things to spend that money on, and killing this plane project would not make us a whit less safe or ready.

Nice, I like that idea, a swarm of jammer drones to eliminate all electronic advantages. I'll put your name in the hat for the evil super genius prize this year.

Agreed, the 1 on 1 fighting scenario is not the plan anymore. That doesn't mean it never happens though, or won't ever happen in the future, and as Americans we want/expect to win every single time.

She's probably smiling too hard to even SEE the screen...

Also, that's not a CRT, where an electron gun is constantly firing radiation at your face. It's an LED or LCD flatscreen. If you think THOSE do damage, then I respectfully submit you stop reading this and print it out because your monitor uses the same tech.

There have been many things in history that have been thought to have been impossible. Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation on "The God of the Gaps" is a great video addressing that line of thought.

However, that point may not even matter. My hypothesis is that our neurons don't operate all the way down to a sub-atomic or electron-spin level of granularity. There's plenty of complexity at the molecular and cellular scales. We're likely chemical and physical reactions like Newtboy says.