>> ^Crosswords:

Why PS3's? Only thing I can think is that they may be cheaper for the hardware.


Several reasons.

1. Desktop processors are designed to sort data it takes in, allowing developers to code easily and quickly without to much concern for the CPU, this however has a major downside. Upto 1/3 of the processor isn't used for work, but for just sorting the incoming commands. The Cell in the PS3 however has virtually no sorting, and instead relies on the developer to do that. This makes the cell more bang per buck than many processors at similar size, speed and cost.

2. The Cell is designed around parallelism, which is perfect for super computing tasks. Many organisations use PS3 based machines just like the airforce for everything from rendering to weather prediction.

Why isn't possible this is cloud formation from a low pressure region along the wings as they pass through different temp/moisture/pressure layers?

I couldn't find any exactly matching photos, but let's assume this is a KC-10.
http://clemsonpilot.com/pacaf/KC10.jpg
http://www.wagnersonline.com/photogallery/airforce/KC-10a.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/kc10/kc10_07.jpg


Those are not nozzles. Those are control surfaces and part of the flaps. Is it possible they are dumping fuel? I think the more obvious explanation is to think pressure changes. But I do wonder why there are not normal contrails as seen in this picture (but the plane might have been descending):
http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200702-71-UnitedStates-DefenseVisualCenter-DFST9904792-Antarctic-sun-USAF-KC-10-Extender-refueling-aircraft
-large.jpg

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I'm referring to a system that lends itself to corruption. See Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect.

Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party. How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees? Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.

But if you cut defense spending how will our airforce get awesome stealth jets that can fly at mach 3 and fire a $500k guided missile from 50k KMs up in the stratosphere with enough precision to hit the milking goat tied up to a post outside a suspected terrorist's stone and dung hut? Answer that one Mr. Maher!

>> ^Deano:
I understand from the article that this was the spare plane. So what is this or the first choice plane called when Obama is elsewhere?


AirForce None.

The marine didn't do anything wrong, nor did Obama.

I'm not sure why this is news though. Obama shook his hand, I'm happy for him... is there nothing else going on in the news?

A couple days ago CNN interrupted a news story about the stimulus package debate for a "breaking story". Basically there were some reporters on Airforce 1 asking Obama what he thought about flying on it. He said it was nice, and he said the marine helicopter was a smooth ride... that's it... that was the whole "breaking news" story. I've seen them doing the same thing because they saw Obama walking down some stairs. Seriously?

I like Obama for the most part, but some of these news organizations drop everything the moment they see him take a breath in public.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I could list a billion Bush apologies and it wouldn't matter jack to Obama-zombies.



Of course Bush apologized for a lot of things, but not for the things people were criticizing him for.

He didn't apologize for invading Iraq under false pretenses, he apologized for displaying a "Mission Accomplished" banner too soon.

He didn't apologize for the government's handling of Katrina nor did he say that the FEMA director was less than effective in his allocation of resources... he apologized for not landing Airforce 1 in Louisiana instead of flying over it.

It isn't that Bush didn't apologize for anything, it is that he very often missed the point (almost intentionally at times). Sure, Obama could say "I'm sorry that the people I chose to check out Tom Daschle screwed up", but he didn't. He took responsibility for the actions of those under him, the same way a platoon sergeant is still responsible for the actions of those under his leadership, even when the platoon sergeant isn't directly involved in the screw-up.

There is a point to be made that many people are/were too critical of Bush at times, but I really can't see a reason to criticize Obama for accepting responsibility for the actions of those under his command.

things went as smooth as they did because they had an excellent captain on the plane, who apparently did absolutely every little thing right for the situation. i read one passenger report who thought they had landed on a runway because the water landing was so smooth. i think i also read that the captain is a former jet fighter pilot for the american airforce, so i bet he has some serious piloting skillz no miracle, just one good guy keeping his head cold when it counts.

>> ^Retroboy:
I upvoted the above comment with great hesitation. Although its points are valid - that you can't trust the casualty counts released by either side because of their obvious bias - the interviewee in this case is foreign and not Palestinian. This is a military action in a highly populated area, and I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are not far off.
It's also bad news that the population of Gaza is so young, not just for the casualty distributions, but because teenage boys are excellent recruits for militants due to their greater willingness to believe in and sign on to a dangerous cause. An older person looking around at the carnage and with their own children to protect might be more inclined to support stopping it, but young men might see this and get angry enough to sign up with the resistance and fire rockets back, contributing to the destructive cycle.


But hey, that's not really a bad problem for Israel is it.

1. Your enemy are surrounded to the north and east with walls, to the south with destroyed tunnels and walls (preventing access to Egypt) and to the west by the Red Sea.
2. They do not have a serious standing army/airforce (no tanks, artillery beyond hand held, certainly no jets/helicopters).
3. They have little food and supplies.

So a few more rockets take a few more Israeli's out... It's all "collateral" damage and it gives the leadership more reason for more action.

And America's picking up the tab. Don't you guys feel kinda ass raped by all this? You're losing your jobs, your houses, your companies are collapsing, your returning vets can't get appropriate health care and support (you know, the guys out their dying for you) and your government is bankrolling another countries ability to bomb kids.


The commentator's analogy is simplistic and inappropriate. "I think that there were shots coming from that direction so let's throw a bomb at that school over there" has an entirely different context from "Shots have been coming from this region for a long time and they've been landing in our territory with the intent to deliberately harm our people. We have warned you to stop it or shots will come back and hit wherever your shots are coming from, and they won't stop until yours do." This rationale certainly still doesn't make attacking a school right, but if you listen solely to the commentator you're not getting the whole story.
Both targeting locations in schools or marketplaces AND using those locations as launching points because you think they will incur retaliatory attacks that will harm civilians and make the enemy look bad is horrible.


UN school ran by UN administrators housing refugees. Unless the UN is complicit in the attacks now...

Seriously, do you think the Jews would have appreciated America firebombing Dachau or Auschwitz because in amongst all of the holocaust survivors there could be a couple of German troops firing back?

What is scary, after going through such a terribly cultural event that they would perpetrate something similar on another race. Kudos, they became the monsters they despised.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dr strangelove, opening credits, b52, us airforce, midair refueling' to 'dr strangelove, opening credits, b52, nuclear, us air force, midair refueling' - edited by calvados

Straight on the phone to the joint chiefs, set up a conference call, order the military to defcon 2, order all airports shut down and any planes not responding to be declared possible enemy and have fighter escort with authority to shoot down if deemed necessary.

More than sit on his ASS for 10 min and then run around thinking about what his fucking PRESS release would say.

"The 2nd tower has been hit, the US is under attack"

THE US IS UNDER ATTACK.....and he asks his advisers what he is gonna say at his press meeting...for fuck sake man, hes the HEAD of the defence force, he could of done several key things to give the army / airforce / navy / marines the power to lock the country down and secure anyone from entering / leaving until the situation had been under control and assessed where the threat was coming from, and how best to deal with it.

You don't sit in a fucking kindergarten classroom continuing to read a book with a bunch of brats when you are told that your country is under attack.

The Youtube description is incorrect. JF-17 is far from the most advanced fighter jet in the Chinese air force, it is not even being picked up by the Chinese air force yet as I remember. It was developed as a cheaper alternative of French Rafael, Saab Gripen JAS39, for developing countries/smaller countries to replace their aging fleet of Tornado and Mirage.
So far only Pakistan have ordered this aircraft from Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC)
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp

>> ^spoco2:
Basically, what I see here is a politician who is very well spoken, has a good head on his shoulders and can speak clearly, and intelligently without a teleprompter.
Same can't be said for who has been running your country for the past 8 years, or the running candidate for the 'other' side.
This trip of his is a smart political move though, it's really a case of looking and acting like he's already president, and getting people really comfortable that he would work in the role.
I do hope he is your next president.
I also was watching a program last night here in Australia on John McCain and it showed one of his new supporters, who used to be a Clinton supporter, saying that he was going to vote for McCain because he had been in the airforce and shot down and a prisoner of war, and so that meant that he had what it takes to lead the country.
Um
Wah?
How the hell can people be so dense as to think that because you got SHOT DOWN, and then spent time as a prisoner of war, you have ANY... I mean ANY greater claim AT ALL to be a good leader of a country? Wow... and I've heard many others spout that because of his military record he would be the better leader.
For god's sake people... being a member of the armed forces does NOT immediately make you a fine leader.
(Being a member of the armed forces who showed great bravery and strategic and diplomatic knowledge maybe, but not just automatically 'armed forces = good').
GAH.


Well, I'd say he showed some bravery when he refused a prisoner exchange that would see him released early because of who his father was. Also showed some diplomatic knowledge of what his staying would deny his captors. That said I agree there is a lot more to being president, but his military record is exactly what one would want from a president. He's pretty certain to condemn the use of torture and understand what the cost of war is on the soldiers fighting it. I still favor Obama, but Mccain isn't half so bad as most McCain=Bush folks want to believe.

Basically, what I see here is a politician who is very well spoken, has a good head on his shoulders and can speak clearly, and intelligently without a teleprompter.

Same can't be said for who has been running your country for the past 8 years, or the running candidate for the 'other' side.

This trip of his is a smart political move though, it's really a case of looking and acting like he's already president, and getting people really comfortable that he would work in the role.

I do hope he is your next president.

I also was watching a program last night here in Australia on John McCain and it showed one of his new supporters, who used to be a Clinton supporter, saying that he was going to vote for McCain because he had been in the airforce and shot down and a prisoner of war, and so that meant that he had what it takes to lead the country.

Um

Wah?

How the hell can people be so dense as to think that because you got SHOT DOWN, and then spent time as a prisoner of war, you have ANY... I mean ANY greater claim AT ALL to be a good leader of a country? Wow... and I've heard many others spout that because of his military record he would be the better leader.

For god's sake people... being a member of the armed forces does NOT immediately make you a fine leader.

(Being a member of the armed forces who showed great bravery and strategic and diplomatic knowledge maybe, but not just automatically 'armed forces = good').

GAH.