The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

The hype video helps understand it better though right?

sweet. they created a hype video to distract people from their slow progress.

For some reason, the way it falls in the vial reminds me a lot of Silent Hill.

Certainly a cool material, and I'm hoping it'll get some good real-world applications soon. Seriously doubt we'll be seeing wearable stuff in 2019 though - that still seems too hype-y.

Fuck's sake, Bob, take a moment and do some research.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/23/chain-email/video-barack-obama-speech-circulating-internet-was/

Clipping the speech like that is some Alex Jones level shit. Don't be like Alex Jones, Bob.

I'm not the greatest fan of Obama after I grew immune to his hype, but he wasn't a proponent of dictatorship.

The problem with bitcoin is it being treated like a commodity instead of a currency.

Some very rich people pulled a pump and dump---over the course of several months mind you---and a lot of the 'liitle folks' got burned in the hype.

This and Westworld season 2... super hype and *promote. Looks good so far.

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

Hmmm... I can understand the intent is to drum up the hype & interest for Solo, but really, I think the PR machine is just spinning in circles and going through the motions for the paychecks. These teasers are not going to convince the hard core SW fans that the movie will be good/worthy of the SW name. Oh well, it is meant for the general public.

For as a rich universe as Star Wars, I can stomach the terrible movies. I can mental-block those because there are plenty of other mediums that can tell much better SW stories. Sadly I put ever less and less hope that the big movies can kindle the love of the property. As many of the movie-making analysis videos say, modern SFX bonanza is really more of a hindrance than complimentary to better film-making.

My main enjoyment of SW now comes from the books, comics and the model kits I build. The movies, not so much.

Watched it live. Hype was infectious. Seeing the two side boosters coming down together in almost perfect synchronisation was quite a thing.

Yep, sold...

sign me the hell up for this!

Geek hype!!

Wasn't working, but it's on YouTube, and yes, that was embarrassing. All that work, money, and hype...for that? I haven't watched to the end yet, but I doubt we'll see a second one of these any time soon unless the final battle is amazing. Too bad.

Extremely cautious about this one after Ep. 7 turned out to just be a cash-grab rehash of elements from the original trilogy. I refuse to board the hype train this time around. If it's good I'll be pleasantly surprised. At the very least, it will be interesting to see if the most common Internet theories about Rey's origins are correct.

Well I'm on the hype train. I got tickets ordered, luckily. Going to be seeing it on the 16th (Sat). Best part, reserved seating so I got good seats for the best experience. Yay~