@longde I too have struggled to find how I feel about Manning as well. You can't say you love the rule of law then turn around and support everything he did with out some further justification. And to that end, I think exposing hidden violations to the rule of law, violations where the term "classified" and "secret" were used intentionally to mask them, should be protected under whistle blower exceptions. I don't know if that is what Manning did exactly, which is why I am eager to hear the details in his trial. I can still see my idea of him going either way, I know Greenwald loves what he did, so I am leaning that direction, but I reserve the right to change my mind

So...
Q: What is red and white and hangs from trees?
A: A baby that got run over by a snow blower...

Sorry, I thought we were testing the waters and telling tasteless jokes...

Q: What do you call two dead babies tied to your feet?
A: Slippers

For some reason, my wife doesn't find these jokes funny - all I get from her is a scowl!

It's only the prototype, they're looking to make the next version lighter, higher revving, more powerful.

The spitfire used a 2 speed blower that the pilot switched in flight, but the equivalent Messerschmitt had a more sophisticated variable one (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_605 for details).

I don't know what the Mustang had, but I'd assume they've copied it here.
>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^oritteropo:
It's already supercharged according to the english version of the page.>> ^TheFreak:
Needs a turbo.


Um...needs a two stage supercharger then.
From the bore and stroke I'm not sure how they get away with calling this 1/3 scale. More like 1/5. Even then, the displacement is a fraction of the type of 12 cylinder engine they're replicating because of that whole πr^2 thing.
Nitpicking. I suppose the point is that it's cool.
Still not 1/3 scale.

>> ^Lann:

I find glass to be much more expensive. Then again, it depends on what you mean by "smithing" if you are talking about a blacksmithing studio then yeah a small lampworking set up will be cheaper but still more expensive than the basic start up tools for metalsmithing. Glassblowing however is extremely expensive requiring an annealer, glory hole (no not THAT kind for you dirty minds), and a furnace that runs all the time so it takes a great amount of glass. Coldworking tools are also very expensive. It is understandable why studio cost for glass students are always WAY higher than for metals students.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Glass and smithing are two things I'd like to at least say I'd made something from, even if they looked like crap. Glass is probably the bigger one because it's something you could more likely do at home and on a lower budget. But they are both one of those things where I think you need a apprenticeship in to keep from doing stupid things that could potentially kill or maim you bad enough to screw you up for life.



Honestly don't know enough about either to say one way or another. Glass seemed like it would be cleaner and something you could do without a full production setup, where as blacksmithing would be something you have to go full bore on to do anything worthwhile.

I know they have some metal like substances people use for jewelry and such now that only require a small oven. They are like some kind of clay-ish substance that you mold by hand how you want then bake it to get the metal like look. And I may even be half informed on that as well.

Although I can think of one type of glass creation that I've always wanted to make and keep, where you find a beach and stick a metal rod into the sand to capture the lightning formation as it heats up the sand to glass at the end of the lightning rod. Nothing really man created about it, just kind of coaxed.

I find glass to be much more expensive. Then again, it depends on what you mean by "smithing" if you are talking about a blacksmithing studio then yeah a small lampworking set up will be cheaper but still more expensive than the basic start up tools for metalsmithing. Glassblowing however is extremely expensive requiring an annealer, glory hole (no not THAT kind for you dirty minds), and a furnace that runs all the time so it takes a great amount of energy. Coldworking tools are also very expensive. It is understandable why studio cost for glass students are always WAY higher than for metals students.


>> ^Porksandwich:

Glass and smithing are two things I'd like to at least say I'd made something from, even if they looked like crap. Glass is probably the bigger one because it's something you could more likely do at home and on a lower budget. But they are both one of those things where I think you need a apprenticeship in to keep from doing stupid things that could potentially kill or maim you bad enough to screw you up for life.

>> ^pho3n1x:

sounds to me like a disgruntled employee.


Whistle blowers must be protected in a free society.

good for the whistle blower.

nothing's going to come of it.. maybe a new dressing room door.. but very little will change.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
From Article:
'When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”
...
Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.” '

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

So he's been locked up with no trial, only charges, for a full year (almost).

Not to mention that very shabby conditions he's being held in, which to me seem obviously punitive, which is illegal.
>> ^Morganth:

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:
But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.

In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.

If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

>> ^legacy0100:

The show host keept interrupting Ms. Gillard whenver she gets to speak, and I find it rather annoying. On a bigger matter I happen to agree with Julia Gillard on her views of Assange. This man just loves to stir shit up and gain more attention.
Many journalist who has worked with past whistle blowers made contacts with Assange and later cut ties with him because they were was put off by his character. They often described Assange of "having his own agenda."


When it comes down to it, doesn't everyone have their own agenda?

The show host keept interrupting Ms. Gillard whenver she gets to speak, and I find it rather annoying. On a bigger matter I happen to agree with Julia Gillard on her views of Assange. This man just loves to stir shit up and gain more attention.

Many journalist who has worked with past whistle blowers made contacts with Assange and later cut ties with him because they were was put off by his character. They often described Assange of "having his own agenda."