What idiot sees a flooded underpass full of stalled, almost floating cars and just drives on in?
I'm pretty sure he just voided the warranty on his Tesla.

So, I don't want to take anything away from these dogs. They are smart, extremely trainable and handle adverse environments with ease. Kudos to them for this "feat" of outer worldly doggie duties.

But lets not kid ourselves here, the dogs are NOT flying the plane. The yoke is locked and they are simply pushing down left or down right to "steer" the plain. Impressive for the likes of dog... but not flying.

Flying involves so much more than tilting the yoke. Way finding, fuel/weight calculations, the ability to take off and land, stall evasion, emergency outs, the ability to understand weather forecasts and weather patterns, etc, etc, etc.

If the pilot unlocked the yoke those dogs would have nose dived into some English ninnies garden in less time than it would have taken them to eat a treat.

Up voting for the dogs... down voting for the schmaltzy human commentary.

Hence, why I suggested one bathroom for urinals and one for stalls.

That said, I obviously frequent a better class of public bathroom than you as most of the ones I've been in weren't swimming in urine

Oh FFS ,why do we even have gendered bathrooms anyway? Just have a room with a bunch of urinals and a separate room with a bunch of stalls. Use one if you can urinate standing up and the other if you want to sit down.

People need to get over this and stop being so fucking precious.

There was an attempt at making completely open source (hardware and software) voting machines, but it stalled a while ago. http://openvoting.org/ for more info.

Companies like Diebold are quite scary.

Also, here's what EVMs look like in the worlds largest democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_voting_machines

Much simpler than all these full-PC touchscreen systems in US, but still possible to tamper with...

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

The F-35 can fly both faster, and slower than the F-16, and longer at high angles of attack that would stall most planes. It although can't out accelerate the F-16 though since F-35 is heavier. But having the best acceleration isn't really a factor in modern air combat, where missiles are being thrown at each other from any between 20-100+km's range. As long as you can accelerate good enough, which being a fighter plane it can.

The F-35's afterburner-less supersonic speed is more important in a BVR(beyond visual range) engagement, since that's what allows you to put more distance between you and an enemy missile. The idea being that you fly perpendicular to a missile making it cover more ground and it runs out of fuel and speed so it falls out of the sky before it can reach you. Of course to lock onto a stealth plane you'd need to be quite close in the first place, by which time it would have shot you down, at least that's the theory.

If it comes to a close range scenario, say enemy AWACS manages to detect the F-35s, and direct a bunch of enemy fighters through a set of mountains to sneak up on the F-35s. And a visual range or even dog fight ensues. Then the F-35 would use a short range missile that can turn 90+ degrees and shoot behind itself . Which no other plane can do since all of the sensors are forward facing on all other planes.

But you're of course right, there is always eventually going to be a way of countering the stealth advantage, it's an arms race after all. Most likely it will be countered by some kind of cheap jamming drone swarming, which would make the F-35s sensors useless, and missiles too few, forcing the engagements to happen at shorter ranges.


------------------

What I mean by dog fighting is a one on one engagement where each plane is trying to furiously out maneuver the other. That is a rare occurrence. There is a WW2 era video that explains the tactics used that make the one on one style dog fighting obsolete. https://youtu.be/C_iW1T3yg80?t=530

The planes have a system where as soon as one plane is engage by an enemy, then your wingman, or a spare clean up squadron comes and mops it up, since the enemy makes it self an easy target when engaging a friendly.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

I never intended to imply that it was an either/or choice. (EDIT: Sadly, it seems that may be the case, as they have yet to meaningfully address the water issue)

Since they DID change the law, they debated it. Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?
And for the reasons I delineated above, it's not pointless. Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless. They certainly have been a problem in the past, and as I said, holding the specter of their use returning is a horror we should not tolerate being inflicted on so many for no reason.
IANAL?
Your next paragraph is my point...I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes. That they neglect to take those 2 minutes, and instead again ratified this disgusting, unconstitutional part of an otherwise (seemingly) reasonable law is more than disgusting, it's a total shirking of their duty.
But yes, that's the US political climate. We're doomed.

*How's 1 year ago? Recent enough? There may be more recent.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

EDIT: I understand that most people outside the US would be surprised that these laws are still on the books and being used, but they are. Often not prosecuted, but used to PERSECUTE instead.

As expected, they are already claiming a 'lame duck' president has no right to select a justice , constitution be damned.
Many have also been calling on their cohorts to not only block any nominee, but to block any vote on the matter at all until after the election.

I think you are right that blocking any confirmation could hand the Dems the white house. It seems they have a decent chance to retake congress as well, and more purely politically motivated Republican governmental stalling is just what it might take to hand them the entire election.

The coming election could be the most important in living memory if all 3 parts of our system are up for grabs at once. That's CRAZY, and more than a bit scary.

Taking bets on how long Republicans attempt to drag this out. Longest selection process has been just over 3 months.

This is lose lose for the Republicans. The longer they try to stall, the more they guarantee a Democratic White House. Democrats have a problem voting in midterms, but they don't have that problem with general elections.

t's possible to love someone
And not treat them in the way that you want
It's possible to see your eyes
Be the devil in disguise with another front
And, it's possible to change this world
Revolutionise the boys and girls
It's possible to educate
The next generation that will rule the world someday

The changing times of the 21st century
Means nothing to me cos I would rather be
At the beginning of time, earth would be mine
Living in luxury
Discovering a world out there
Believing in the sun earth water and air
Take me there so I could see the world bloom
Standing on a sea cliff howling at the moon
Creating a world for the open minded
A unique perception of truth inside it
I know we could find it
It's just a matter of where and when we collectively decide it
The world is not a vicious place
It's just the way we've been raised
Discovering time and space
I know that we could make a change
Rearrange the way that we appreciate the world today

It's possible to love someone..

Now as i start to put my mind into words
I stall I fall I'm loosing it all, my inhibitions
The thought of wasting a way
The fact that the music's at a place not far away
Yet I stray and stick to my world
In love with my life my beliefs and a girl
Is it luck that I love this crazy place, the human race?
Don't get me wrong I still think we could change
But this life and the fact that time exists
And were here and we don't come equipped with it all
Half the fun is learning and I'm having a ball
While the world keeps turning my role is small
But I'll make a change
I hope you're feeling the same way
I hope you're seeing what I say

It's possible to love someone..

In this concrete jungle we live
Our survival is love that we give
Now my instinct is guiding my way
It's true what they say
The world is your chance to create

I respect your position and defence of it. I must say though that on inspection, the quoted reasoning can and therefore probably has been used in the past to condone slavery in America, and other awful stuff.

The problem with it is that you state your dedication to something regardless of the morality of it.

I'm trying to think of other things that have used the same reasoning. Sexism, bullfighting, fox hunting, anti-semitism, age old wars like the irish feud (until common sense prevailed)?

It really isn't a great way to set out your stall. There are so many things that we used to think were ok that needed to change, and the world is a better place because we didn't follow that "it's tradition" ethos.

Funny to me that he's so interested in interviewing the 'witnesses', yet has failed to interview the two 'witnesses' that have been available for over 6 months.
Also funny to me that he's waiting on the DOJ, who has requested a meeting to discuss the witness interviews, but apparently scheduling that meeting is too much for him to do and he'd rather lambast the messengers that repeat the requests, and actually has the gall to say 'You know why the DOJ isn't here, because we don't have a problem with the DOJ'. WHAT?!?

I would say it's just as likely that the Bengasi hearings will 'stall' until next summer, when they'll suddenly be the most important thing the right wing can deal with/talk about. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another 'birther' type of thing. Only meaningful to rile up the republican base that could not care less about the facts as long as they have something to be angry about.

Ok, maybe a pilot can correct me here, but that's not necessarily a violent or high stress manoeuvre. Pretty much all planes are able to do these tricks (including large passenger jets), they just aren't often flown that way. As long as they have enough air speed and engine power to not slow too much and stall out mid way through then there only needs to be a relatively small increase in load on the wings to do this.

The Vulcan is a very cool plane though. I live just down the road from where they used to keep the last flying one. A beautiful plane.