The Zero's Chinese performance was ignored by the U.S. command prior to pearl harbor, dismissed as exaggeration. That's actually the crux of my point.

Exceptional moments do not change the rule.
Yes on occasion a wildcat would get swiss cheesed and not go down, but 99% of the time when swiss cheesed they went down.
Yes, there were wildcat aces that did fairly well (and Zero aces that did even better), but 99% of wildcat pilots were just trying to not get mauled.

Hellcat didn't enter combat till mid 1943, and it is the correction to the mistake. The F6F should have been the front line fighter at the start of the war... and could have been made sooner had Japanese tech not been ignored/dismissed as exaggeration.


Russian quantity as quality? At the start they were shot down at a higher ratio than the manufacturing counter ratio (by a lot). It was a white wash in favor of the Germans.
It took improvements in Russian tech to turn the tide in the air. Lend-lease only constituted about 10% of their air force at the peak. Russia had to improve their own forces, so they did. By the end, planes like the yak3 were par with the best.


The Mig31 is a slower Mig25 with a digital radar. Their version of the F14, not really ahead of the times, par maybe.

F15 is faster than either mig29 or Su27 (roughly Mig31 speed).
F16/F18, at altitude, are moderately slower, but a wash at sea level.

Why would they shoot and run?
We have awacs, we would know they are coming, so the only chance to shoot would be at max range. Max range shots are throw-away shots, they basically won't hit unless the target is unaware, which it won't be unaware because of the RWR. Just a slight turn and the missile can't follow after tens of miles of coasting and losing energy.


Chinese railgun is in sea trials, right now. Not some lab test. It wouldn't be on a ship without first having the gun proven, the mount proven, the fire control proven, stationary testing completed, etc.
2025 is the estimate for fleet wide usage.
Try finding a picture of a U.S. railgun aboard a U.S. ship.


Why would a laser rifle not work, when you can buy crap like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7baI2Nyi5rI
There's ones made in China, too : https://www.sanwulasers.com/customurl.aspx?type=Product&key=7wblue&shop=
That will light paper on fire ~instantly, and it's just a pitiful hand held laser pointer.
An actual weapon would be orders of magnitude stronger than a handheld toy.
It's an excellent covert operations weapon, silently blinding and starting fires form kilometers away.


Russia does not need to sink a U.S. carrier for no reason.
And the U.S. has no interest in giving Russia proper a need to defend from a U.S. carrier. For the very reasons you mentioned.


What Russia can do is proliferate such a missile, and effectively deprecate the U.S. carrier group as a military unit.

We need carriers to get our air force to wherever we need it to be.
If everyone had these missiles, we would have no way to deliver our air force by naval means.

Russia has land access to Europe, Asia, Africa. They can send planes to anywhere they need to go, from land bases. Russia doesn't /need/ a navy.

Most of the planet does not have a navy worth sinking. It's just us. This is the kind of weapon that disproportionately affects us.

-scheherazade

Funny I don't see this kind of language your using on any CNN or late night clips .

The Crybaby's are from the left. Day after day night after night doom and gloom and wipers of hope that they finally got dome dirt on Trump. Day after day they end up with egg on their face.

CNN and Lanny Davis -- recent prime example CNN going with the lie -- even after Lanny Davis corrected them-- FAKE CNN

24/7/365 anti trump propaganda and still Trump polls # stay steady.

All the media fake stories about Trump helping Conservative get stronger in their resolve.

All the Antifa protest and hard left stories just are just turning liberals away from the democrat party.

Democrat represent everything wrong with America.

I'm not horrified by what was shown in the video. Not in the least. I'm just interested in the gender bias and how it affects application of the law.

With regards to your comment about physical size, what if a young (or just petite) male server weighing 130-140lbs, was groped this way by a heavier woman? Would he then be justified in throwing her down? I suspect the media outcome would still be different and result in the male server being charged. This is gender bias because men are supposed to "suck it up".

As I said, if a man grabs a woman or shoves another man, he should expect to get blasted in the face. I was brought up to never hit a woman (or anyone really) and do believe men need to show more restraint in confrontations with aggressive women because men are typically stronger and, probably on average, more physically capable in a fight.

Getting off topic a bit, but the problem I have with the modern feminist movement is that it is becoming much less about equality between the sexes and more about gaining an upper hand on men. Many modern radical feminists seem to want to be treated equally until it doesn't suit them. So I agree with you that modern society has gone a bit crazy trying to say that there are no differences between men and women. But that is getting off topic.

Wow, I really must be getting old. Why is society becoming so horrified by physical violence? If you grab someone like this, getting punched out is not an escalation of violence, but an appropriate deterrent.

As for between men and women, I think this is a situation where you have to be willing to offend the extreme feminists by observing that men and women although equal, are also different. A 115lb women assaulted by a 170lb man warrants a different response than a 170lb man assaulted by a 115lb woman. IMO, the larger stronger man can more easily afford to warn the woman to not repeat the offence prior to a physical response. It also seems to me that society disagrees and thinks they should be considered and handled identically, but I think society has that wrong.

I don't need a stronger bond with mine thankyouverymuch

also @eric3579

To clarify a Thousand Year Storm isn't only going to happen once in a thousand years. There is always a probability that it can happen. Some of this could easily be 'bad luck'.

The phenomenon that created this situation is known as cell training, and happens all over the place. However, it is worthwhile noting what else they say, "...scientific studies have shown a statistically meaningful uptick in the frequency of extreme rain events over the eastern United States. Statistically, over the long term, these types of extreme floods are probably becoming more common, in areas that are normally rainy as a result of global warming."

What this means, at least the way I understand it, is that statistically in this region we can expect a higher probability of these 'xxx year storms' every time conditions are favorable for cell training style weather.

We can expect more of these types of storms, simply because the climate is in a format that creates more ideal conditions. These ideal conditions are not limited to just this type of weather, either. Gulf hurricanes, tornado alley tornadoes, and other 'regional' weather patterns are also experiencing 'ideal' conditions to allow stronger, more damaging storms to develop.

First play, I heard Yanny. On the last repeat, I "tried" to hear Laurel and was able to, but felt like Yanny was stronger.

Second play, I turned up my volume. I had had it set quite low, I turned it up to rather high. With that, it was flipped -- Laurel stronger, Yanny just audible if I listened specifically for it.

I have my computer hooked up to a receiver with large speakers and a subwoofer.

, I said it was more controversial.

I dare say even agreeing that we don't solely choose our sexual interests, when it comes to our actions I insist we treat those as the result of free will, aka choice.

When I'm not typing from a 4in screen I can pull up the references, but the peer reviewed studies on genetics hardly illustrate that sexual orientation and identity are dominated by it. Twins studies do show that identical twins more often share orientation than non-identical, which gives a correlation to genetics. However, I'll pull up the studies but last I reviewed them, more than half the identical twins in the studies did NOT share the same orientation. That is an arguably compelling indicator that genetics does not solely determine orientation.

Other twin studies comparing other behaviours like religion show a similar pattern. Studies with twins on violent and aggressive behaviour show an even stronger "genetic" component than the orientation studies, and nobody has any qualms about being politically incorrect declaring that violence is a choice and not a birth attribute...

Fair enough, but these are separate issues, I agree with the premise of the video. But, while it would be a mistake to assume that men cannot be victims of abuse, it would also be a mistake to assume general equivalency. Take, Weinstein for example. Once he'd isolated his victims, they had to handle their situation with the added fear that he may physically overpower and rape them. With the gender roles reversed, the situation would in most cases not be the same. There is an extra dimension that needs to be considered resulting from the biological fact that men are bigger and stronger than women. I believe you do need to consider gender, even though it would be nice if you didn't.

Eh, their overall point is certainly valid, but in the situation with the woman assaulting the man, I would not be greatly concerned for his physical safety (which, granted, is assuming he doesn't have some kind of physical disability, which isn't a great assumption). Being bigger and stronger, he has the option to extricate himself while staying purely on the defensive, whereas a woman being assaulted typically doesn't have that option without assistance from a bystander. I don't think we want to over-equalize everything to the point where we overlook that underlying all male-female interaction is that if it somehow degenerates to violence, the male will most likely ultimately control the outcome

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Yeah, he isn't resisting much and it does make her look stronger and the throws look cleaner than they really would in reality... there is an element of choreography, but in most cases it's for practical purposes, to avoid unnecessary injury, not for aesthetics.

But then i quite like the aesthetics too. It's dancing. I think I always enjoyed Ju Jitsu more for the workout, history and artistry of it than for actual self defence.

Yeah, @ChaosEngine that's true, but it still doesn't work in real life.

Nobody uses Akido in MMA.

Akido is moderately effective when teaching a weak person to fend off stronger, untrained individuals. It's shit if your opponents have been trained.

Also, if I need more proof Akido is shit: Steven Seagal.

I rest my case.

It's easy to agree with you, because your not wrong.

I would add the caution though that oversimplifying things risks underestimating this threat to us all. This level of hatred, division, anger and violence doesn't cease to exist if we could go back and make Clinton president. It might move it down a notch, but just as good of odds it would have set it off sooner and stronger.

The threat from identity politics, nationalism and hatred is much worse than just Trumps failures as a president. The divide between people has been growing for long before even Obama was in office. It used to be that a push from the extreme left or extreme right was met by a push to more centrist ideas. Lately though the political parties and media have started taking the opposite approach and it's destroying our society.

The Republicans pushed in the direction of the extreme right with the tea party. The left push back though wasn't to woo moderate right-leaning folks, but instead pushed out to the extreme left with SJW movements like BLM. The right then pushed back again not wooing the moderate left, but doubling down the tea partiers. Then the pinnacle of this insanity was Hillary Clinton's campaign arrogantly believing she could win without wooing the moderates because who in their right minds would follow the extreme right leanings that Trump represented?

The end result has become not only less choice for all us moderates on election dates. The sinister part is it has bled off the number of moderates and made them more extreme.

The Nazi's used the brutal reparations against Germany to rise to power. The Neo-Nazi's and nationalists in america are able to similarly use the SJW policies of the left, even affirmative action, to similarly expand their base. A former coal mining town filled with young, unemployed white people that start feeling like affirmative action is making them second pick for what few jobs remain is BAD.

The situation is MUCH worse than anybody is giving credit to. The problem isn't this crowd of neo-nazis that we can outnumber, push into a corner and beat up or throw behind bars. The real threat is the tipping point were a dangerously meaningful number of folks decide joining the likes of them is in their own self interest. It ALREADY went as far as that number voting Trump. The fact the democratic party and members still don't see this threat and still don't realise they need to stop chasing this base of people away and start trying to reach out and appeal to them is baffling, and terrifying.

From the comments in 2009 when this crash test was first released, they won't believe it. People said that it was "obvious" that they had removed bolts and the engine from the Bel Air and that a real crash wouldn't go that way.

Even faced with evidence that modern cars are stronger, they will still say things like:

Engineering improvements or not, the sheer weight and gauge of metals used in the 50's is far superior to the aluminum foil they make cars out of now.