Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

One thing I liked about that in particular:
She looked like she was having fun, even when she wasn't so good.

I've played bass (electric, never tried an upright) for about 15 years. I only got *really* serious about it after getting Rocksmith 2014 -- went from playing once in a while to almost every day. I'm a LOT better than I was, can play a LOT of songs at least decently (say, 97%+ accuracy in Rocksmith), but still nowhere near as skilled as some.

BUT, it has been FUN every step of the way. Especially after trying Rocksmith, which presents "sheet music" in a visual, tab-like format that I can now effectively sight-read (it takes some getting used to, but works great once you figure it out). A lot of people are reluctant to try learning an instrument because they think it won't be fun, particularly in the early going. They think they will suck.

Well, in my experience that is half right. Yeah, you're going to suck (I certainly did). But it is loads of fun, in spite of that. And you get better fast -- the human brain is a pretty amazing thing. One day, you try a new song and think "damn, that is so hard I'll *never* be able to play it right". Then a month or two later you think "oh yeah, I should give that a second try" and all of a sudden it is very doable. Awesome to have those little moments of revelation when you realize that "hey, I am definitely getting better at this!"

He just gets better and better.
I don't like the Daily Motion Player.

@VoodooV --

I dunno. That argument holds true, but only if you believe that the parties actually represent different ideologies / interests. Those (like myself) who look at the whole mess and see "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists A" vs "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists B" might be interested in Bernie mainly because the Democrat establishment clearly doesn't *want* us to be.

For me personally, I think Bernie represents the best shot at real, positive change. Then again, I'm wary of that because I thought the same thing about Obama and his rate of delivery on promises has been very very low (to be fair a lot of that is systemic rather than HIS fault). But if/when Bernie doesn't get the Democrat nod, I'd be highly tempted to vote for Trump just because sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better, and Trump is clearly the fastest path towards "worse"...

Bernie's commercials are getting better and better.
*promote a modicum of truth in *politics

It's different this time though. Every technological advance moves jobs from humans to automations once the automation is good/cheap enough.

Right now, automations aren't good/cheap enough to do most of the jobs humans do (if they were, they'd already be doing it).

But that's going to change. Even for "creative" jobs (music, writing, art, etc), computers are getting better at it. Remember, they don't have to be perfect or even as good as the best humans, just better and cheaper than most.

Eventually the number of jobs that actually require human input will be vanishingly small.

This is going to happen.

http://videosift.com/video/Humans-Need-Not-Apply

OK, I honestly don't know if this is the 'upload a pic of your choice to punch' type of thing either, but I do think that exists, which means this isn't worse than that, if it's not that.
I do agree, she's not rich, and so not as protected. I don't agree that, necessarily, those playing the game have any intent to harm.
I also disagree that NO one has malice towards Bieber, I'm certain there are hundreds of people out there that would love to punch him in real life...and have said so online. I agree, she's seen it worse though.
I can't say which game would have more genuine ill intent, but really, I think more people would actually hit Bieber than kill Bin Laden...maybe I'm wrong and there are more people out there willing to kill rather than punch, but I kind of hope not.
I can guarantee if Bieber gets punched, without SERIOUS injury, tens of thousands of people will cheer! Me with them. he's getting better, but for a while there he really needed a good smack to the face.
It's possible there may be MORE people wishing actual harm against Sarkeesian, but not really likely, since as you admit, her celebrity is a black hole compared to Bieber's star, so exponentially more people know Bieber.
Yes, a game that ONLY allows you to punch blacks would be, by definition, racist. One that allows you to punch Cosby likely exists...and he's also received numerous, serious death threats, and doesn't have major security (but maybe more than her, I don't know). I would say it's also OK to pretend to punch Cosby...or anyone you feel like PRETENDING to punch...as long as it stops there.
Part of living in a free society is a bit of risk. Some face more than others, it's not fair, it's just reality. As my parents told me daily...no one ever said life is fair.

EDIT: Also, no one is forcing Sarkeesian to view the game. It only constitutes harassment if they somehow subject her to it, right? If people surrounded her on the street with Ipads and 'punched' her face in front of her, yeah, but it simply existing....well, I think that doesn't rise to the level of action by far. If I find out someone is playing that game with a picture of a newt....fine...just don't go punching any real newts or we'll have problems. Otherwise, go to it and get it out of your system. ;-)

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Still crazy, eh? I hope it gets better. VS 4ever.

Can a brother amphibian get a *death (even if it was a fake death), *timeshift, and for good measure, a *terrible ? I'm not at all sure why you tagged it world affairs.

Please, don't test this theory for yourself. Frogs are having a tough enough time as it is with chytridiomycosis (infection from the chyrid/chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)). If you need to slowly boil something alive, keep in mind we have an over abundance of humans and jump in the pot yourself. You'll get better data that way! ;-)

just keeps getting better and better!

This guy keeps getting better.

00scud00 had a good answer, but it's actually a callback to a much earlier episode that features the Meeseeks box. The Meeseeks box generates a Meeseeks ("Hi, I'm Mr Meeseeks! Look at me!") who will then help you with any task you desire, and pop out of existence once it's done helping you. In the earlier episode, however, the Meeseeks gets a task it can't solve, and has a psychotic breakdown ("I'm Mr. Meeseeks! We're only supposed to live for five minutes! I've been doing this for two days - an eternity in Meeseeks time! Look at me!").

Here, apparently, someone generated a Meeseeks to get better at an arcade game, as a background gag.

These are getting better and better.

These are getting to be near actual movie reviews. Wonderful take.

*quality

This looks amazing. Almost as cool as his role as the Red Lotus master of the void, Zaheer.

Henry Rollins gets better with age, but I will still rock Black Flag's Damaged every. fucking. day. KEEP ME ALIVE --

Only you can do it
If not you'll die too
And I'll see to it

It's hard to survive
Don't know if I can do it

Keep me alive
I can't accept my fate
I need help
Before it's too late

It's hard to survive, don't know if I can do it
I need to belong, I need to hang on
I need, NEED

Keep me alive feelings I must obey
Can't turn my eyes from the past
This crisis is the last

Keep me alive
I rely on your judgement
I've got none left of my own
Don't know what I'm doing

It's hard to survive, don't know if I can do it
I need to belong, I need to hang on
I need, NEED

Keep me alive
Only you can do it
Keep me alive
Only you can do it

It's hard to survive, don't know if I can do it

Keep me alive
Keep me alive
Keep me alive
Keep me alive

It's hard to survive, don't know if I can do it
I need to belong, I need to hang on
I need, need