Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

Scalia... That old bigot took his bigotry to the grave. All his ideas were distorted and screwed up.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am not ignorant. I knew who that was.

Then why the blackface comment? It shows stunning hubris to assert that someone who is Brazilian is not latino.

[Ben Kenobi]

All his ideas were distorted and screwed up.

We're all working from the presupposition that homosexuality comes from nature, that's not the argument. The argument is over natural order - over society.

[Giancarlo]

Then why the blackface comment? It shows stunning hubris to assert that someone who is Brazilian is not latino.

Your intent was racist. The image itself was not. Your intent speaks a million. Why don't you say just it? All of us are the same and jump the border... Just say it. ****... Does this idiot even know where I am from?

[Giancarlo]

We're all working from the presupposition that homosexuality comes from nature, that's not the argument. The argument is over natural order - over society.

Well considering your argument is bull**** and homosexuality is part of the natural order and nature... and society... Total bull****.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your intent was racist.

You stated that the photo itself was racist. Now you're saying it was not.

[Giancarlo]

You stated that the photo itself was racist. Now you're saying it was not.

Your intent and prejudice has everything to do with making it racist. You are a bigoted loser.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your intent and prejudice has everything to do with making it racist. You are a bigoted loser.

You're the one who asserted that Carmen Miranda is like a white person performing black face. I'm not sure how we conclude that I'm the racist for posting a picture of Carmen Miranda. She's a latina.

[Ming]

Ben, I think everybody here knows what your intent was, so enough of your BS. So stop trying to be cute.
Keep it up and you will be having somebody else post your fantasy picks this year.

[kentonio]

Sure, but I don't see the Americans today being able to sustain such a difficult logistics problem in order to actually occupy Russia. Nobody's done it yet.

You don't necessarily have to occupy a country to beat it militarily. The world has changed since 1945.

It's also why we're seeing asymmetrical strategies being employed against the United States. Kill ratios for suicide bombers are much higher than actual engagements. War is going to kill people - you're better off doing what need be done quickly at the cost of some lives than to try to go in with the goal of no casualties and not accomplishing your objective.

Automated pilots will kill a lot more people a lot more quickly and effectively than a human pilot.

Having a pilot in there will mean that yes, you have some casualties, but also that it gives you a backup in case things go wrong. The software is just not that good enough to fly without a pilot. Drones are cheap. Planes are very expensive.

Sorry, you don't understand how advanced software is becoming. Pilots are the weak link in the chain, and keeping them out of the air means you can do a lot more things that would otherwise be impossible. No point having a 'backup' pilot if he's going to be passed out most of the time from suffering high speed manouvers the body can't handle. The second point you make it actually true but not in the way you mean it. Having to design a plane around a pilot does indeed make it extremely expensive. The future drone fighters should be considerably cheaper, so you'll be paying much less for something much more effective.

That strategy worked for the US because you had high population areas with lower standards of living. The problem for China is math. How do you replace a 5 million manpower shortage every year? Even with all the labor pool of asia, that's not going to be enough, given the problems that Japan has, and the fact that Indonesia is no longer supplying as many people as the Philippines are.

This makes no sense. China does not have a population where 100% of the people are efficiently working at essential roles. 5m people in a population of 1.36 billion is frankly an irrelevance, and as living standards grow they'll settle into a more stable pattern. As I said before though, it doesn't really matter when you can just buy companies in low income country or just outsource work to there.

The only, and I stress, only source of sufficient labor for China is India. This is a controversial opinion, as I've not seen anyone else reporting on it, but yes, the labor shortage in China is real.

You haven't heard it anywhere else because its silly. There isn't some huge manual labour task that China has to have fulfilled or else it fails. They're an economy like anyone elses, they'll make things internally while its cheap to do so, and start importing from poorer countries when its not. It's worth noting the amount of Chinese investment into Africa by the way. China is being very careful not to put all its eggs into a single basket.

China needs the far east - they cannot survive without the far east. India doesn't need anybody except themselves.

Can you explain why you think either of those two sentences are true?

It doesn't help when you have folks actively selling your systems to people like China. The point is that the US is no longer in this position. Like it or not, the gap is about 10 years, and it's going to take time to bring the F-35 to bear. And I'm not real bullish on the F-35 being all it's claimed to be. Stealth just doesn't really seem worth it on a cost benefit analysis. You're better off fielding cheaper unstealthy planes like the F-15 and the F-18.

Why wouldn't people sell systems to China? Unless of course you do think of them as a potential enemy, who should be technologically embargoed. That said its far too late for that anyway, they stole a lot of technology to narrow the gap but now they're more than capable of developing their own. Their anti-ship missiles are supposedly the best in the world. They still have a massive amount of catching up to do however, as America never stands still.

Your final point kind of contradicts your whole argument by the way. If you're going to rely on older cheaper planes, then what's the point in spending vast sums trying to stay technologically far ahead?

[Giancarlo]

You're the one who asserted that Carmen Miranda is like a white person performing black face. I'm not sure how we conclude that I'm the racist for posting a picture of Carmen Miranda. She's a latina.

This has nothing to do with the picture and everything to do with your intent and you as a person. You are indeed a racist bigot. And your homophobia is well noted. Stop trying to deflect. You just got caught red handed.

[Proteus_MST]

...

Sorry, you don't understand how advanced software is becoming. Pilots are the weak link in the chain, and keeping them out of the air means you can do a lot more things that would otherwise be impossible. No point having a 'backup' pilot if he's going to be passed out most of the time from suffering high speed manouvers the body can't handle. The second point you make it actually true but not in the way you mean it. Having to design a plane around a pilot does indeed make it extremely expensive. The future drone fighters should be considerably cheaper, so you'll be paying much less for something much more effective.
...

Not to forget that having a pilot in there would mean a tremendous space and weight increase.
Like instruments ... life support (i.e. oxygen) ... the pilot himself ... and especially the ejection seat.

This would make the plane bigger and much less efficient (as it becomes less maneouverable, slower and less fuel efficient(->lower range)), thereby putting it at a disadvantage against automated planes that have no human backup pilot

[-Jrabbit]

Better killing machines, yay!

[Giancarlo]

Oh and as far as China... they should be a partner and ally. I think they could have a big part in combating terrorism. There is a major issue of the South China sea that must be sorted out between all countries involved. That is a dispute that should not allowed to continue.

China isn't without internal problems of its own, and its prematurely aging population is of serious concern (primarily because of the years of effects from the one child policy).

[kentonio]

If you're hoping for China as an ally, you're likely to be disappointed. Superpowers don't really have allies other than in the master-servant sense and China has little reason any more to be subservient to America.