Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Denied? (Score 2) 245

Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church is Christian. It just a front to either make money and/or acquire fame and power, which is why Molyneux finds it necessary to isolate his "followers" from critics. This is starkly opposed to other Libertarian groups who spend considerable time discussing how to engage constructively with critics.

I would also contest the idea that Molyneux is "one of the most popular". He is one of the most visible, there is a difference. He catches a lot of well deserved criticism from other Libertarian individuals and even philosophers for the faulty logic and thinking he uses.

Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to say that they do not get to define what a libertarian is, then promptly proceed to define what a libertarian is.

Comment Re:Makes perfect sense.. (Score 1) 201

"Oh and don't bother with the tired "the majority is peaceful" because a silent majority DOES NOT MATTER."

Actually, the majority are sympathetic to many things ISIS believes.

The Myth of Moderate Muslims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup (2011).
45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree). The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

"Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist."

Can you imagine if Christians has similar views of violence towards things it's philosophy doesn't like? Like Abortion? Abortion clinics would have military detachments guarding them 24/7 and abortion clinic bombings would be a daily event in the US, and have the support of a significant portion of the population, rather than the once a decade or so event that they are by people acting alone with no support network to hide and protect them.

Comment Re: Makes perfect sense.. (Score 1) 201

Sorry, reading the passages in context doesn't help the Koran.

The passages go from peaceful, when Mohammad had no political power, to violent as he gains more and more political power. This is painfully obvious when you read the Suras in chronological order. "A Simple Koran" available on Amazon does this. His biggest body count was when he had 800 people killed in one afternoon, according to MUSLIM sources. (Jesus, by contrast, never kills anyone or calls his followers to kill anyone.)

Of course you are also correct in that the Koran is largely incomprehensible without commentaries. Commentaries written HUNDREDS of years after Mohammad. Heck, even Mohammad's biography isn't written for over two centuries after his death.

What is actually funny is that while Christianity has weathered 300 years of textual and archaeological criticism stringer than ever, the secular history it records having been effectively verified by many who started out to discredit it, Islam is failing those same tests miserably. Much of the Koran, we now know, is copied and edited from 2nd and 3rd century Jewish and Christian apocrypha (non-cannon) writings. What is written of Jesus in the Koran is lifted from 3rd/4th gnostic writings. The story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is the most blatant example of copying, but there is plenty more.

Even if you ignore the copying, you have no early manuscripts that agree with the Koran today and Muslim tradition itself mentions that there were competing versions of the Koran until Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed except the version he had made. The earliest copies we have show significant editing and don't match todays text. The earliest manuscript, the Sana'a manuscript, the Yemenis government won't let anyone examine anymore. All we have is microfilms of it from the Germans who first examined it. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.

It gets worse when you go to archaeology. Turns out Mecca's history doesn't go back further than the 4th century AD. To add to that, Mecca doesn't match the geography of the Koran and the traditions. (Anyone see any Olive trees in Mecca?) The icing on the cake is that mosques for the first HUNDRED YEARS of Islam don't point towards Mecca, but Petra. Petra also matches the geography in the Koran and the traditions. If Muslim history has been so heavily edited that the story of Mecca and the location of the Kaaba isn't reliable, how much of the rest of the Koran and Islamic scriptures can we trust?

An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That video is just one of many that could be posted on the subject.

Contrast this with the Christian texts. Unlike the Koran, the documents that make up the bible are not considered the literal "Word of God". While Christians call it the "Word of God" for convenience, it is more accurately described as "The History of the Word of God". It is the message it contains that is important, not the fact that we have the exact wording of every document 100% correct. (Textual criticism has the New Testament down to 99.6% accuracy, with no variants affecting essential doctrines.)

Jesus, has FOUR biographies written about him within 70 years of his death, two by eyewitnesses and two from people who were in close association with eyewitnesses, on top of Jesus being mentioned by several non-Christian sources. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited political power that were lost and then rediscovered in modern times. Any intentional editing would easily be caught, as it is in the Koran, but textual critics don't find that. They find the usual spelling errors, word substitution, word order changes and the like that you find in any document from that pre-printing press age.

When the documents of the New Testament were compiled together into one volume, after circulating as independent documents before that, no effort was made to edit or harmonize the accounts. Many apparent contradictions exist to the casual reader that are only resolved with a little research into the cultural context, historic context, and standards of writing of the day. While this makes it easy for critics to invent contradictions out of whole cloth, it's also a data goldmine for historians. Eyewitness testimony virtually always agrees on the major details while differing on the minor details. Example: When the Titanic sank in 1912, eyewitnesses disagreed over if the ship sank intact or broke in two before sinking. Historians don't look at that and conclude that the Titanic didn't sink.

The benefit of these minor details added off the cuff can be shown to be true or false.

When Jesus is stabbed with a spear after death, blood and water poured out. Why would water pour out of such a wound? Well today we know why. Jesus was going into hypovolemic shock from the beating he sustained before being crucified. This causes fluids, but not blood, to build up in the body around the heart and lungs. So when stabbed through the heart and lungs, a mixture of blood and what would appear to be water would spill from the wound. In the 1st century the only way you would know that is if you saw it happen. You would have no idea WHY it happened of course.

In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?

The book of Acts is fascinating to read from the perspective of a historian because it has so many details.

The Gospels are also great reads because of the sheer incompetence of the disciples before the resurrection. If YOU were making up a religion would YOU put in your scriptures YOU committing even half of the screw-ups that the disciples got themselves into? They completely fail to understand major teachings on many occasions. Jesus calls Peter Satan. The male followers of Jesus hide in fear while the women followers go to and discover the empty tomb. They then fail to understand the meaning until he appears before them and verbally slaps them about. You have passages where large numbers of followers LEAVE after Jesus makes a statement. You have Peter denying that he was associated with Jesus during the trial. (Yea, that makes a great recruitment story, Peter is the leader of the church, the first pope, and right there you have him cowering and running away and in general being a complete incompetent.) That's not a good story to make up, but if it's what really happened then it is good history.

300 years of textual and archaeological criticism has forged some of Christianities best intellectual weapons. A few decades of those same disciplines being applied to Islam are showing it to be built on a foundation of sand.

Comment Re:"Even if the price of oil goes back up"??? (Score 1) 266

As someone who lives in North Dakota, I know right away where your mistake is.

The number of DRILLING RIGS has dropped off a cliff, 75% is in the ballpark of what it has been. Drilling rigs and wells are not the same thing.

The only wells that have been shutdown are extremely old wells that have been exhausted/worn out and would have been shutdown anyway and wells belonging to owners who leveraged up too much and can't pay the bills. The latter is only temporary as the well gets bought up in bankruptcy court. The vast majority of operators are still profitable in terms of marginal cost, since the sunk cost of the well has already been spent.

What has happened is well operators slowing down the pumps; both to be more efficient in terms of electricity consumed by the motor and to better time the pickup schedule when the storage tanks get full.

Saudi Arabia will break before US oil producers do.

Comment Re:That sucks (Score 2) 276

"What is truly sad and pathetic is how thanks to deregulation allowing a handful of corps, all of which are either heavily tied with the US government or the defense industry, to own all of the media stations USA "news" has become that joke from the movie Airplane." OK, Hairry, you need to put down the pipe and read the idiocy you are posting.

You blame "deregulation" for causing the problem, seemingly deliberately ignoring the issue of regulatory capture that happens in any regulated industry you care to name.

Then complain you about corporations that have heavy ties to the US government.

Instead of blaming corporations, defense industry, etc, just get to the root problem with is LARGE GOVERNMENT. Government that has the money and power to hand out favors to the politically well connected.

Back in the 19th century you didn't have any of that at the federal level. Back when Senators worked with a shotgun to the back of the heads, held by the state governments, that sort of nonsense did not happen at the Federal level because there was virtually nothing to hand out. The STATE level was where you had all the shenanigans going on, with Tammy Hall and such, because THAT is where the power was concentrated.

The benefit of that system, which is how the US is supposed to be setup. Was that any corruption and bad policies was limited in scope. We didn't have nationwide Jim Crow, we only had it in the south. which millions of blacks exploited by simply moving out of the south. We, for the most part, didn't have anti-Asian and anti-Hispanic laws on the national level, they tended to be at the state level.

Any shenanigans over money, favors, and power had to be done on a state by state level. Consolidating such shenanigans across multiple states proved impossible to do for any length of time, as each state had different local interests competing on the state level, each with their own power structures and lines of loyalty.

So you get down to the root of the problem, deregulation and whatever is just a symptom of the problem. The problem is big government and the welfare state and sadly it doesn't seem like much will be done about it until the federal government is finally forced to default on everything it has promised all the special interests. That will happen whenever the world stops handing us more rope and starts demanding payment on our bonds and T-bills.

Comment Re:Fake overclocking (Score 1) 89

WoWS, nice. Have you been playing Ranked? Lots of good rewards even if you don't make Rank 1. I got the pirate flag and now have enough Silver to afford my Gearing when I unlock it. Getting from Rank 10 to Rank 5 was harder than getting from Rank 5 to Rank 1 because the incompetents can get to Rank 10 without too much trouble, then you have to put up with them until you hit Rank 5

Comment Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent (Score 1) 546

There's a difference between having a 'streak' and paying dues and participating in rank-structure in an organization that has actively engaged in bloodshed against other people.

That's an awfully loose definition you're using, you sure your own neck isn't gonna get caught in that rope?

If someone published a database with the name, address, and photo of everyone who has ever been an abortion doctor in the US, you'd be cool with that? After all, nearly half of the country believes that a fetus is a human life and an abortion, done when the mothers life is not in danger, is murder. Therefore abortion doctors are "actively engaged in bloodshed against other people" from their point of view.

Heck, what about people who have simply donated to or are members of a pro-choice organisation? By your loose standards, those people are "paying dues and participating in rank-structure in an organization that has actively engaged in bloodshed against other people".

Are you gonna be OK when people get fired or passed over for promotion at work because a pro-life supervisor or owner found out that someone made regular donations to a pro-choice group? Oh the "official" reason won't be that, but if a supervisor/owner has any brains and patience, they'll get rid of them one way or another.

Hairyfeet is right, there is a very good chance that a view you think is popular and not going anywhere today is going to be unpopular, potentially VERY unpopular, 10 or 20 years from now.

Comment Re:Wrong! (Score 1) 485

Gene Roddenberry was more or less a "Utopian Socialist" and he was hoping humans would "evolve past the need for money". Which is exactly as insane as it sounds. It's like hoping that humanity would "evolve past the need for numbers" or "evolve past the need for indoor plumbing".

Money is two things:

An intermediary for transactions. A universally exchangeable good. The purpose of course is to replace barter, which is massively inefficient.

A unit of measure used for economic calculation, which is necessary once an economy grows past a large family/tribe to properly ascertain scarcity and desirability of various goods. This is why Communist economies fail, the information the central planners need to make economic decisions does not exist under Communism, as prices can only be accurately created by free market exchange. (Of course the USSR and China copied western prices, which allowed crude calculations.) Of course even in a market economy, intervention by a non-market authority (government/central bank) will cause prices to go out of whack. We saw that in the .com and housing bubbles, where government regulations and central bank set interest rates that were too low for the economic conditions, resulting in a bubble.

In ST we see the absurdities created by the lack of money. How many episodes depend in whole or part on the problems associated with barter?

Comment Re:any manuscript before AD 650 is too soon (Score 1) 622

The fatal problem with the Koran is that it was heavily edited by Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed. Some copies that survived this show significant editing. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.

Contrast this with the Christian texts. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited political power that were lost and then rediscovered in modern times. Any intentional editing would easily be caught, as it is in the Koran, but textual critics don't find that. They find the usual spelling errors, word substitution, word order changes and the like that you find in any document from that pre-printing press age.

When the documents of the New Testament were compiled together into one volume, after circulating as independent documents before that, no effort was made to edit or harmonize the accounts. Many apparent contradictions exist to the casual reader that are only resolved with a little research into the cultural context, historic context, and standards of writing of the day. While this makes it easy for critics to invent contradictions out of whole cloth, it's also a data goldmine for historians. Eyewitness testimony virtually always agrees on the major details while differing on the minor details.

The benefit of these minor details added off the cuff can be shown to be true or false.

When Jesus is stabbed with a spear after death, blood and water poured out. Why would water pour out of such a wound? Well today we know why. Jesus was going into hypovolemic shock from the beating he sustained before being crucified. This causes fluids, but not blood, to build up in the body around the heart and lungs. So when stabbed through the heart and lungs, a mixture of blood and what would appear to be water would spill from the wound. In the 1st century the only way you would know that is if you saw it happen. You would have no idea WHY it happened of course.

In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?

The book of Acts is fascinating to read from the perspective of a historian because it has so many details.

The Gospels are also great reads because of the sheer incompetence of the disciples before the resurrection. If YOU were making up a religion would YOU put in your scriptures YOU committing even half of the screw-ups that the disciples got themselves into? They completely fail to understand major teachings on many occasions. Jesus calls Peter Satan. The male followers of Jesus hide in fear while the women followers go to and discover the empty tomb. They then fail to understand the meaning until he appears before them and verbally slaps them about. You have passages where large numbers of followers LEAVE after Jesus makes a statement. You have Peter denying that he was associated with Jesus during the trial. (Yea, that makes a great recruitment story, Peter is the leader of the church, the first pope, and right there you have him cowering and running away and in general being a complete incompetent.) That's not a good story to make up, but if it's what really happened then it is good history.

When I went through my period of doubt earlier in my life, looking at Islam and Christianity, the difference is that Islam depends on the text itself, while Christianity depends on the message contained in the text. If you get a text message that reads, "By moor chepz four tha perty" The message still makes it though 100%, even though the physical text itself has corruptions in it. That is one reason why the early church sought to translate the early scriptures into as many languages as possible, while Islam insists on only being "correctly" read in Arabic. Any coherent thought or concept can be expressed in any language, though some languages take more effort and others less. One religion claiming the truth has the Miracle of Pentecost and the other insists on sticking with Arabic. One has god who can compose a message that all can understand equally well, the other a message that is only "true form" in a foreign language to many.

Then there is Christianity's order to mourn those to leave the church while the other religion has an order to kill those who leave...

Believe what you think is true, but some philosiphies stand up better to scrutiny than others.

Comment Re:To be fair (Score 1) 732

If Japan hadn't attacked the USA then Germany and Japan could have easily won, simple as that. Look at the state of america's weapons at that point, our "premier" fighter was the Buffalo, our "tanks" were M2A4s, most of our ships were WWI vintage, and the American populace was by a pretty large margin isolationist.

Incorrect. The US population was Non-Interventionist, not Isolationist. There is a difference. The USSR was an isolationist country. North Korea is an isolationist country. The 1940 US was a non-interventionist country. Given the results of an "interventionist" US screwing around in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last decade, the position of people back then is hardly unreasonable.

The US premiere fighter in 1940 was the P-40 Warhawk. A design so good that it was built right up through the end of 1944. One a Zero was captured intact and evaluated by the US

The US premiere bomber was the B-17 Flying Fortress which was better than anything the Germans and Japanese ever fielded.

US small arms were ahead of German small arms. The US had the M1 Garand rifle. The MG-34 and 42 may have been superior to the M1919 in some ways, those did not offset the superiority of the M1 Garand. Japanese Small arms were, at best, functional. At worst they were hopelessly obsolete. All the tanks they fielded were obsolete by western standards.

As for German Tanks, most of what THEY had at the time were Panzer 1s and 2s. The limited number of Panzer 3 tanks had 37mm guns.

Of course most of the ships were WW1 vintage. The Washington Naval Treaty and London Naval Treaty basically stopped all new large ship construction until the mid/late 1930s.

It is quite possible their lead in tech would have been so great by the time the USA felt threatened it would have been too late.

Except that lead is grossly overstated.

The Axis powers were always years behind in radar technology to the US and UK.

In jet technology the Axis and Allies were actually pretty even. The only reason the Me 262 and other jets saw production was because the Germans were desperate. The technology was nowhere close to being ready at that point to replace piston fighters.

In electronics, the US/UK had a substantial lead. To the point where they were putting radar fuses into their AA shells. German efforts never went beyond the prototype stage.

In Fire Control Systems, the Japanese systems were poor even by WW1 standards. US Destroyers had better fire control than the best Japanese Battleships, like the IJN Yamato.

German Optical Fire Control was comparable to US and UK systems, but radar fire control was inferior to US systems.

The M4 Sherman came standard with a vertical stabilizer for the main gun, something German tanks never had.

US Mass production was MASSIVELY superior to German production methods, which had stagnated under the Nazi economic controls and regulations.

US casting technology was superior to anything the Germans had. German tanks were of welded construction, an extremely labor intensive process. US factories used much cheaper casting technology that the Germans did not have, using welded hulls only because casting capacity had been maxed out.

About the only thing they had a significant lead on the rest of the world was rocket technology. Only problem was that metallurgy technology of the mid-1940s was not where it needed to be for the rockets, and jet engines for that matter, that Hitler wanted.

Nazi technological superiority is mostly a product of the History Channel.

Comment Re:Would you guys be as poutraged for a Klansman? (Score 1) 192

Let us back up and ask a more fundamental question:

Who is supposed to be the primary beneficiary of marriage?

For thousands of years across many cultures, marriages were frequently arranged by the parents of those to be married. How could the parents know what was in the best interest of their children?

Because marriage was never about the people getting married. It was about the CHILDREN that marriage produced. People have known instinctively for thousands of years, and modern studies have confirmed it, that children do best, on average, when raised in a home with a mother and father. Ideally a father and mother who is blood related to them.

Take out the issue of gay marriage, what do researchers find when gay marriage is not in the picture?

Children raised by single parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a married mother and father.
Children raised by divorced heterosexual parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a married mother and father. Children raised by heterosexual adoptive parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a blood related mother and father. (Adoption is not the same as surrogacy. Adoption seeks to make the most of a bad situation, surrogacy seeks to create that bad situation.)
Children raised by heterosexual parents who got them via egg or sperm donation and is unrelated to one of the parents, on average, do worse than children raised by a blood related mother and father.

Then SUDDENLY, gay marriage comes into the picture and it's "children raised by gay parents turn out just as good as heterosexual parents". That is obviously false, since how else do gay "parents" get their children except by divorce, buying them via surrogacy, or adoption? Thankfully honest research is starting to come out, exposing this lie for what it is.

Note that the media and the gay lobby only ever shows children who are still dependent on their parents for testimony, they NEVER bring in people who are now adults and financially free of their parents. Ever wonder why that is?

Don't take MY word for it, look at the testimony of adults who were raised by gay parents and DARED speak openly about it and how they are against gay marriage. They have been subject to death threats, lost their jobs, put on "watch lists" for doing nothing more than talking truthfully about their childhood.

Let me repeat that, MANY CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY COUPLES ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!

Here is Robert Oscar-Lopez, a bisexual man raised by his mother and her lesbian partner. https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...

It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.

It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership.

Lastly, it’s harmful to everyone if gay men and lesbians in mixed-orientation marriages with children file for divorce so they can enter same-sex couplings and raise their children with a new homosexual partner while kicking aside the other biological parent. Kids generally want their mom and dad to stop fighting, put aside their differences, and stay together, even if one of them is gay.

Go read the briefs submitted, by Mr. Lopez and the other children of gay parents who are critical of gay marriage, to the supreme court.

Even better, why don't you go read Mr. Lopez's blog and see what people raised by gay parents really think (At least those brave enough to speak out about it.) http://englishmanif.blogspot.c...

Also go check out "Ask the Bigot" who was likewise raised by gay parents and who is against gay marriage. http://askthebigot.com/

Suffice to say, your bigoted support for a culture of child sacrifice on the altar of "equality" will not last. You and I will grow old and eventually die. The special interest money will move elsewhere, and the children raised under the system you are creating will grow up and tear down what you have created.

Stop pretending that you are fighting some noble battle against "the man", the LGBT lobby IS "the man" and has been so for quite some time. (Note that the LGBT lobby is not the same thing as LGBT people, in private you will find quite a few gays and lesbians who do not approve of what is being done in their name.)

First it was easy divorce, abortion, and now gay marriage. The interests and rights of children always sacrificed for the selfishness of adults. In some ways, gay marriage is a good thing because it will eventually bring about the end of all three. An entire generation of children bought and sold like cattle via surrogacy, the divorce courts, and adoption. Denied their rights to a mother and father. Denied their right to know their origins because of anonymous sperm and egg donation. Denied their right to not be bought and sold like cattle. You pro-LGBT folk need to remember that children are humans and that they have their own feelings and hold their own views. One day they are going to be independent of you and free to speak their mind, that should terrify you.

The pro-abortion crowd won a decisive battle in 1973 and has been losing the war ever since. The gay marriage crowd has won a great battle in 2015, but is going to lose for the same reason, because the truth is not on their side.

Am I right? Lets stop back in a few decades and find out.

Comment Re:The A10 (Score 1) 732

"A problem which still exists and for which the A10 is still apparently quite effective."

Sorry, but no. Against opponents who have competent anti-air capabilities, the A-10 is sadly long obsolete, as neat an aircraft that it is..

The 2K22 "Tunguska" was designed to specifically blow aircraft like the A-10 to tiny slivers of metal, with guns and missiles that out-range the A-10 by a good margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There are SPAAGs newer than that of course with even greater capabilities. The future is probably with simpler turboprop aircraft that can fly even lower and slower than the A-10, with a combination of cannons and rocket pods.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Working...