that and the largest planes at the time, including all trans-oceanic passenger planes, were all flying boats.

the only reason flying boats fell out of use is the range of land based aircraft increased sufficiently that the ability to land and refuel on the water was no longer a strength, and the ability to have a streamlined fuselage is an efficiency and speed advantage over seaplanes.

but there are still many cases where seaplanes have important uses, such as maritime operations, particularly search and rescue.

now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?

Sure we can. We can feel sympathy for all those who were addicted due to a doctor's incompetence in prescribing drugs (it's not their fault!) Or for those valiantly sacrificing their health to pay for the 47% moochers' share.

</I wish I was joking >

The fact is, cocaine and pain-killers have always been an upper-class drug; and the penalties and stigmas surrounding both reflect that.

The one surprising thing was the accusation of meth use; but I feel like that's likely purposeful conflation with other amphetamines by someone with a vested interest in exaggerating the problem.

When you're surrounded by nails, and standing around holding a hammer, people will wonder why you're not hammering. As long as you're not Jewish. In that case they'll try to convince you that you're surrounded by petunias and daffodils.

The problem seems to be that every time Palestine gets some degree of freedom, it results in more rockets and shells falling on Israel. Not exactly an encouraging trend if you're considering giving them more freedom.

It might also help if the government of Palestine didn't have "destroy those Jews over there whom we won't even call Israel because we don't recognize the existence of such a state" as a major part of it's official policy.

You really have to be a complete fucking idiot to say something that ignorant. Yeah, Israel wants the "inferiors" gone so badly that they let them immigrate, give them citizenship, and let them hold elected office. They provide them with more rights in Israel than they would enjoy in Muslim-run countries. Meanwhile they continue to endure constant attacks while providing electricity, fuel, food, and medical help for the population which is attacking them.

Seriously, you're either mentally handicapped or you're intentionally lying. There's no halfway point here.

If you're basing foreign policy on things you learned from your mother, you're doing it wrong.

Yes, it absolutely does. Israel makes every reasonable effort to avoid hitting civilians, but when Hamas encourages people to sit on top of known targets it's completely fucking impossible to avoid killing them. The South Park Movie has a satirical bit where the US Military uses a tactic called "Operation Hide Behind The Darkies", which involves having their white soldiers hide behind all the black troops. They also tie black soldiers to their tanks and airplanes. Humorous at the time, but that's essentially what Hamas is now doing in Palestine, except with women and children.

"You can't blow up our rocket launcher, look at all the kids we duct-taped to it!"

And people like you just lap it up.

you had AC?
i worked in a warehouse one summer down there...long miserable days with no AC in a metal building.
Fun.

you dont run multiple electrical busses into a building for the same circuit, especially in a large building.
there may be multiple busses, but they each supply power to a seperate system.

they meant "bus". as in electrical bus. the main line running into the building.

only if you think in terms of leaving the Earth's gravity well every time.

we could, right now, with todays technology, begin exploring.
it would be hard.
it would expensive.
but we could do it.

it starts with learning to harness the resources already in space.
then turn those resources into ships. some of the mterials would have to come from earth, at least initially.
hell, we could turn the moon into a manufacturing and launch facility.
and just being 1/6th the earth's gravity leads to expenentially lower fuel requirements.

the problem is we dont even have the collective will to start.
because "its too hard" "its too expensive".
we went to the bloody moon for chrissakes.
ya ya, to beat the commies. but also because we could. to prove it could be done.

even then we could have started this greated of all human endeavors: conquering space.
but we didnt.
and its stupid.

but point is once you get going, the easier it is to keep going.
and we could do it today.

but if we keep waiting "for the right moment", for it "become easier", with the right "magic tech"...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
over time we will develope better tech. but the thinking of waiting for tomorows tech is a trap, an endless cycle.
so start now, start today with todays tech.

So fund NASA.
And get us off the rock.
Before we make it uninhabitable.

spacex is commercial space.
NASA is federal space.
they are not mutually exclusive.

NASA shouldnt really be in the business of boring day to day work, ie, space trucking.
That role should fall to commercial enterprises, or at least public/private partnerships.
NASA itself should have as its core responsibility research and exploration.
Pushing boundaries, trapping/visiting asteroids, etc.

Your statement has no bearing on reality let alone the ACA.

Actually the ACA doesnt cost even close to trillions.
Simple fact of the matter is it doesn't "cost" anything.
It makes more money than it spends.
That's right: it actually turns a profit and REDUCES THE DEFICIT.

You must have missed where I said a typical "flight of four" aircraft.

The F22 is currently capable of carrying 6 missiles (typically the larger AAMRAM) internally in the main bay and 2 Sidewinders (1 each) in the smaller side bays. In addition it has 2 hardpoints under each wing, each of which can carry an additional 2 Missiles, for a total of 8 additional missiles. That's a maximum loadout of 16 AA missiles, at the cost of stealth capability.

So for a flight of four F22s you're looking at a typical "At Range Engagement Capabilty" of as many 32 enemy aircraft, and up to 64 aircraft if they're loaded for bear. And that's not including the aircraft's dogfight ability using its 20mm cannon.

The F35 is currently equipped with 2 internal bays capable of carrying 2 missiles each (and is already planned on being expanded to 3 each), as well as 2 underwing hardpoints, and wingtip rails. this combines for a maximum current AA loadout of 8 AAMRAMs and 2 sidewinders.

So even the F35, for a typical flight of four aircraft, in an all AA loadout, can engage as many as 40 enemy aircraft.
And the F35 still packs a 25mm cannon as well.

(and even if you want to factor in countermeasures and get real nitty gritty, the numbers are still impressive)

And your opinion on its maneuverabilty is frankly ignorant.

Probably one of the best things NASA could do at this point is abandon ISS, stop paying for it, and tell the Russians its all theirs. There is a fair chance they would fly Americans to it for free rather than get saddled with that boat anchor.

If the Russians don't want it either its time to deorbit it. It would free up a LOT of money for more useful endeavors. Its never been good for much of anything, certainly nothing to justify the staggering price tag

SpaceX will have the ability to put astronauts in to LEO in a few years. Its not like its a crisis, there is very little for people to do in LEO at the moment other than to be lab rats for zero G physiology studies. You would think they would have done most of that work by now.

About the only point in putting people in space at all is as colonists, persumably on Mars. You can do just about everything else way better and cheaper with robots.

So until you are ready to fly people to Mars to stay, stop getting your panties in a bunch about getting them to LEO.