champu

What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? i'm informing you that the american criminal justice system is racist against blacks. why do you think that is? And we're back with the axiomatic assertions. Again, what exactly is a racist outcome? How disparate must a statistic across races be for someone to just know that the result was that of malicious racist forethought? When does that become "obvious" as you say? The reason I'm asking you these things is that I want you to realize what happens when you stand on a soap box and say, "listen up you ignorant, pig-headed racists... cause I know that's what you all are... you all need to start doing things the way -I- think they should be done." If you can't accept that people who disagree with you may not be racist, then you should go make a movie about your beliefs. You won't change a damn thing, but maybe you'll make some money off people who think the same way.

What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities?

are you saying that american history is not replete with devious plans to lock up black people (but not this one you say) I said nothing of the sort. I didn't even make an assertion. I asked if it was possible for someone to agree there was a problem with either situation but not attribute it to race. Is a person who believes this, in your opinion, necessarily either fictional or deluded?

As a professor of mine used to say, "It may be obvious, but it's not obvious why it's obvious." Which is a playful way of saying, "Why don't you stop stating things axiomatically and put a fucking argument together." I'll ask you this: do you think it's possible for someone to simultaneously believe that what was done in gitmo was torture and that it was wrong -AND- that the people that ended up in gitmo were there not because of their race? how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people?

In principle it makes sense. As others have mentioned, fixed fines can result in people who can afford it paying and getting on with their lives with no change in behavior. Level the damage levied and you may be able to change that. Is it the most effective deterrent? Well, what works in one culture may not in another. Some places the shame would be enough if the action were publicized, others might require jail time to get the message across. You have to examine what is valued across a culture and use that some how. Money is fairly universal, but it lacks creativity. In America I think the big things would be people's free time and personal dignity. I'm sure a community service program could be developed that would serve as a strong deterrent for the rich and poor alike. The logistics surrounding the "income and personal wealth" thing worry me a bit too. Getting an accurate picture of someone's income for a year can already be a challenge for tax purposes, never mind personal wealth.

'Eunt'? What is 'eunt'?

MIL-HDBK-338 Electronic Reliability Handbook It's a thousand page document that takes you through how to talk about reliability, how to calculate it, how to spec it, how to design for it, collect data about it, and how to manage programs around it.

The best western estimates are that the (Pakistani) Army has control (of the nuclear weapons). Yeah... I was trying to make sense of this article before I wrote my post but then decided calling it "somewhat strange" would have to do. Sweet. Will watch.

I don't know... marching over Islamabad and taking over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal aren't really one in the same event. Picture someone invading Washington successfully and then trying to use the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It's not as easy as it sounds. On top of that, I believe the chain of command from the civilian government down to the "button pressers" in Pakistan is somewhat strange. I doubt TB could order an attack and actually have it happen. (I'm not entirely sure the current government could order an attack and actually have it happen. )

Some of these thread titles make me a sad panda. I understand speakers corner serves as an outlet for a lot of politically polarized (sometimes comical in their triviality) topics, but do we really need to make political polarization THE topic of the thread? So tell me, do any of you douchebags have a douchebag opinion on this?

how about if you notice when people scratch out a barcode in the wrong axis? ...or, speaking of the pentagon, if you... [X] Have to look something up in a MIL or NASA STD document for work [X] Have a copy of it in your my documents folder that you obtained a year ago and kept for some reason... [X] ...which you disregard because there's probably a newer revision available [X] Go get the latest revision and then get lost reading it for stuff you weren't looking for... [X] ...laugh childishly at a diagram you stumble upon... [X] ...print it out and show it to co-workers... [X] ...having forgot what you were looking for ... [X] and later admit all this publicly

...also, use of the word "sack" or "sach" up 10% in speakers corner thread titles... ...not planned, but kinda funny. [/self hijack]

Looks like regional commands will have more freedom in employing COIN strategies now... ...probably a good thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16policy.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Devil's advocate: One could easily interpret this to mean they knew they were doing something wrong before and after the opinions were issued, and were only concerned about not getting in trouble for it. This would erode their halos, but as you said, huffing and puffing about what policy was in place when this stuff happened is wasted breath. In any event, I agree with how Obama handled this: go after the policy makers.

Perhaps I was misunderstood as I certainly had no intention of coming across as arrogant. I don't presume them to be children throwing a temper tantrum if that's what anyone thought I meant. I also don't think weakening the US/western economy constitutes an end game for AQ. It's a step for sure, and they've achieved some measure of success. But in what larger direction? I think their ideology isn't suitable to fill the kind of void for which they appear to be aiming. It's one thing to pull the wool over the eyes of the local population in tribal areas and another to exert ruling power over vast regions.

I think "tactics without strategy" is pretty much the definition of a suicide bomber attacking a civilian population. Also, AQ doesn't have an end game, not a realistic one, and they have no plans to take anything in tact. I'll give you that they've shown themselves to be resourceful, but that's about where the comparison to Sun Tzu ends. TB, on the other hand, has made their battle one of logistics, have shown they know when to advance and retreat, and have a very successful communication strategy that has allowed them to take large areas without battling the local populace. TB != AQ. That's actually why the battle in Af/Pak has been, and will be, more difficult than the battle in Iraq. I'd give far more credit to Omar than I would to Bin Laden. (but none to either in terms of their cause. I think they're both religious nuts.)

Definitely. JT's in charge, so keep in touch with him about the flocking events. I will be out there this Saturday and possibly Friday as well. Find me if you're around.

Ninja (Chris Scott for the uninitiated) was showing me Ian's video from the 2005 CPC meet at Colorado yesterday, a reminder of what big canopies at big wing loadings can do. (I love that 96s and 103s are "big") I did five high-altitude flocking jumps with JT, Jessica, Tommy, and some other talented locals a week ago with about 20 lbs of lead on (putting me at 2.2) and they went awesome. I was way timid at the start of the camp (and it showed in my flying), but by the fifth jump we were doing a rotating formation that required me to do rear-riser pop-ups in a tight formation with canopies on either side of me... holy friggin' awesome. I can't wait for the next camp (May 1st) and the next camp (May 15th.)

And what do you think it says? (...he asked, expecting a quotation block) [/cheese shop sketch]

Not even Iran believes that Israel won't attack Iran. If history, and not just modern history mind you, has proven anything countless times over it would be that people don't get along. I'm all for aspiring to rise above our ancestors' shortcomings... but it's a fools way to bet.

I would love to see the before and after blood too. There's a fantastic bit of doublespeak in the one though... It reminds me of all the prescription drug commercials these days that list the drug's broad/generic indications (e.g. lack of energy, joint pain/stiffness, etc.) and then include the phrase, "TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR and see if DRUG X IS RIGHT FOR YOU!" The concept of prescription drug commercials is one of those areas of free speech / free trade that I kinda grumble at and then eventually admit that, "yeah... we probably shouldn't ban it..."

One could throw the 1998 TD-1 failure in there and call it 0 for 3 if one were so inclined. A few other comments, not necessarily directed at you Marg... DPRK announced closure areas in both the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean that would have made it very easy for Japan to figure out where the launch was headed if they felt precautions were necessary. A trajectory taking the rocket between the mainland and Sapporo would result in a fairly whack orbit eccentricity for a comm sat. It would also probably be closer than they were willing to aim at Alaska. The US space program was an adaptation of the US ICBM program, not the other way around. It's actually easier that way. If you don't really care what orbit characteristics you achieve or if your satellite burns up in the atmosphere after a month, launching a satellite is a hell of a lot easier than successfully hitting a target (even in nuclear weapon terms) half a world a way. A comm sat would be plenty useful to DPRK to communicate with its aircraft or ships, I wouldn't think it weird that they'd pursue one. That said, I agree this launch was about weapon development and trying to create bargaining chips, not about space.

1950s and 60s apparently... Some of these are hilariously bad. Synopsis: Does your wife suffer from being tired all the time and from being a woman? Does this cut into her favorite activities like doing the dishes and pleasing you in bed? Studies have shown women are, what we doctors call, "on the rag," which leaves them anemic. Put an end to this nonsense with our alcoholic iron supplement!

I have similarly disparate main and reserve sizes (larger of the two is 40% larger) but it's the other way around. When you get down into smaller main sizes nothing is going to play well with them. They are spoiled children. So check your pins, don't dump in the basement, and you won't have to supervise the day care center from hell. The reason I'm ragging on this argument is because it waters down the real problem: the concept of getting a container to fit your main as long as it has "a" reserve. In reality, you should select your canopies in the opposite order that you intend to use them.

ugh... As usual for acts by AQ and/or TB, this is horrible. But also in this particular case... really really... REALLY really stupid... I hate to say it, but I thought more of them. People have been pissed off by the missile strikes in Pakistan because they thought it was America's war with the Taliban drifting into their country. Well... guess what...