It's transmitting power. The red wire leaves, goes to the power source, which then returns to the loop in the alligator clip.

If it was creating power, the LED wouldn't be on at the start when the material is stationary.

That thing about "best friend"? I have been saying that EXACT THING for years.

And not just about who pays for a date. It is for all aspects of the relationship. If I wouldn't put up with certain crap from a friend, why would I from a fella?

Side note -- never have I been in an abusive relationship. I wonder why that is?

But I know I am wired differently.

Long before feminism was a big important concept to me, I went on my first date with a young man I didn't know well.

I was 13 years old, in 1967. We went to a matinee at the local movie theater. Fifty cents a ticket.

I remember standing behind him in line, as he awkwardly paid, and I awkwardly didn't know what to do or say.

And my main thought was -- I have a job. I can afford my own ticket. (I cleaned test tubes in the junior high science lab. I still have sense memories of moldy agar in a petri dish.)

I never got over that. I still feel that way. Go ahead and treat me to something special that you can afford. Next time, it'll be my turn to pick the activity and I'll pick something I can afford.

I was lousy at dating. But I was clear about the basic equality necessary in order to respectful to both of us.

its really not that simple.

Can roundup cause cancer? Well, I wouldn't recommend drinking it.

WILL it cause cancer? Eh, not really.

His lady needs to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk".
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/

And bacon doesn't cause cancer either.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

The full story of how he did it http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/

This is controlled by software, which can be tweaked... the whole point of having test pilots fly the thing. These jets are fly-by-wire as they are bricks-in-the-sky compared to a standard plane so they need automated assistance to fly the plane like 'arcade' mode in a video game. And if you've ever beta-tested a flight-sim you'll know they start off shit and eventually get better as they are refined.

All you mac people are so snowed or blind or just desperately trying to justify your money being wasted on a inferior product.

any thing can be done faster on a proper pc (proper meaning it uses the latest processor memory ssd and graphics card)

but the trouble comes from people when they get on pc they get cheap and expect to do their video editing in virtual dub (not knocking vdub by the way)

or try and find some other video tool they can use for free . they wont buy a proper video editing software package nor will they buy proper software tools for their jobs . they try and use free alternatives or try and pirate the software.

but when they use mac they by the video editing software and the tools they need .

it is such bs, macs are weaker hardware weaker operating system and a weaker overall tool . but since people have invested so much money into them they unjustly justify there purchases by derailing the pc as a lesser platform.

when it is not true.

pcs, can have dedicated storage that outperforms and also stores more than any mac can dream of .

pcs can be all self contained no need for plethora of external drives hanging form 4 may be 3 or is it 2? soon to become one port hanging off your mac in a needless chain of wires.

pcs can have higher resolution and better monitors better user input, better configuration options, and backwards and forward compatibility with previous and next gen software.

but no, mac users over shadow this with the base argument that their $1500 mac is some how better than the $300 desktop they love comparing to .

but when it becomes price point vs hardware mac users have no ground to stand on as they are using , even in their newest machines 3+ year old hard ware and even on a refresh they are already 1 year behind in technology.

mac is nothing more than a placebo for those who failed at using windows computers .

they constantly compare a custom 1500 dollar computer with a locked in user experience to a 300 dollar walmart special with a completely open user experience and lament the windows based product as inferior.

when in actuality it is the mac that is the inferior product.

did you know that your $2000++ mac has a 5400 rpm hardrive in it configured to work with 128gb ssd in such a way that if either of the two fail your entire data set is trashed?

yeah ... thats a well built product .

Hmm. I don't think CG... maybe editing out the water jet? Or tether? Or wires? It's not as bad as that bear video, haha... a little tougher to call... I'm not ready to call it fake... though it is significantly smaller than the hulking jetpack engines we've seen.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-horsehair-worm/

Interesting article.

I have not agreed that my position is wrong on the performance and capability designs of the F-35 and modern air combat. Please read the rest of my post above.... I'm still saying that dogfights have ended with WW1. I've never said we don't need ANY dog fighting capabilities. I'm saying that it's never the primary design idea of a modern fighter jet. You still have a cannon for back up. Just like soldiers have a side arm and a knife. Just in case you do get caught with your pants down or the main weapon fails at a critical moment.

I have agreed on the waste of money aspect of course. I'll also agree that if test goals are being downsized to accommodate flaws, then that's just terrible. If it's not able to perform to it's design then it's useless.

The F-4 != F-35. I can see why people draw parallels. But that only works if you ignore that absolutely everything on the planes is different, the adversaries are different, and stealth is requirement for survivability. You don't use stealth planes in the way you use an non stealth plane. Have you ever heard of a sniper wearing a ghillie suit run across the open battlefield with a sword or pistol? There were so many tactical mistakes in Vietnam as well. The conditions in which that article talks about are also different. Those planes were flying low and slow for a bombing run. Because they didn't have laser, gps guided bombs, infrared fire and forget air to ground missiles or cruise missiles back in those days. You don't get fog at 40,000 feet. They had to fly that low to get a visual identification of their bombing target. That does not happen anymore either. You scream past at mach 1 above the clouds and the bomb hits where it was programmed to hit. Also the phantoms missiles were unrelaiable. That hasn't been the case since the 80s. And their training was poor. None of that is true these days, and has not been true since the 80s either. That's why every single fighter plane apart from the F-16 (which is made mostly as an export product anyway) has been created to fight at long range primarily. The F-15 which is the main air superiority fighter for the US, is heavy and has a worse maneuverability than any Russian plane. But it's still the most feared plane, with no loses in combat. The article you linked even says that. So it's basically contradicting itself. At the start it says, F-4's lost because they couldn't maneuver, and ends with therefore the US made the F-15 which has worse maneuverability than the Russian planes lol.



Edit: Cracked.com doesn't count as a reputable source for anything, including basic sentences, spelling and punctuation.

Edit2: Here is an article from an actual F-35 pilot that says the F-35 dog fights better than a F-16 since they keep tuning the fly-by-wire parameters. http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

So even if it came to a dogfighting encounter, the F-35 is still the best plane in the US arsenal for dogfighting.

That's been refuted now http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

If you read the comments there, it's clear that it wasn't a performance test, but a fly by wire program trial and tune.

But of course that doesn't make head lines like sensationalism.

EDIT: Looks like Arse Technica also ran follow up story:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

Even still I would still expect a F-16 which weighs less than 1/2, and has a better thrust to weight ratio to be fully capable of waxing the F-35 in a guns only dog fight. That's just physics. I'd also expect an even lighter and zippier F-5e to do the same to the F-16. And people did have that critism back in the early 70s.

But as I've said above many times. Dog fights haven't existed since WW1.

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.

I'm not sure we should be sympathetic to convicted pedophiles, even if it is a brain disorder.

There was a scene in Nymphomaniac where the main character forces someone to admit they were a pedophile. When she's telling this to someone else later, her listener says something along the lines of "I hope you made him pay for being a pedophile."

She disagrees. When asked why, she says, "If someone is sexually attracted to children, and knows they're sexually attracted to children, but doesn't act on it because they know it's wrong and keeps it hidden, he deserves a medal."

At the end of the day, the convicted pedophile acted on his sexual desires, and forced themselves on a child. If the crossed-wire theory is true, this is akin to a man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't interested, but forces himself on her anyway.

The problem of seeing it as a mental illness is that we're in danger of letting slide the fact that this person decided his desires were more important than the health and safety of another person. That's where the crime lies.

Well, there's a big difference between an 'irregularity' and a specific 'cross wiring' of how the brain works.

No wires or greenscreen, but there is a little editing right? Please tell me there's a little editing because otherwise how long did this take? I guess if there's 21 flights it must have had cuts or edits... or was that practice?

Did the stewardess spinning circle looked a little edited in? It's so good, i want to see the making of now!