U.S. liquor laws are weird and vary state by state. In my state bars require an expensive license to sell booze. Bars associated with crimes, DUI, assault and battery, manslaughter get fined and ultimately the license is revoked. When a license is revoked, alcohol can no longer be served at that location, ever. Servers themselves face hefty fines when they're found to be serving someone who's drunk. Get a DUI, your waitress can be in trouble.
This approach puts a lot of pressure on the seller. On the other hand, it gives the sellers a lot of leeway in deciding when enough is enough. Do people get overserved? yup. But "bad bars" tend to self destruct.
Getting a liquor license in France is no picnic either. On top of that you have Kafka-esque regulations on the actual running of the business. Countries, especially socialist ones seem to not understand the value of entrepreneurship and its discouraged at every stage.
In the US (where I have a bit of experience opening bars and restaurants,) the regulations can be somewhat intense in terms of health, building codes and alcohol licensing, but the process is typically standardized and generally fair. In France, much of your success depends on if the local mayor is on your side or not. I am leaving NYC out of my generalization because, from what I've heard, the A,B,C inspections can be highly corrupt: paying off someone to increase your rating; failing an inspection for seemingly innocuous stuff (a cracked floor tile in the kitchen, for example is considered a 'violation.')
The market liquidity in hospitality is rather low because of huge barriers to entry. To me the concept of an alcohol license is rather Byzantine.
That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35.
i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range.
Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4.
You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.
So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if they don't even exist.
Quit reading the press that loves to paint military spending as a waste. The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile, but it's not like it's a C-130...
It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.
Glad you're so convinced that it can't win. Period. That is so comforting. Not all air combat is done in a dogfight. Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.
And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."
Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.
>Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.
Negative, Ghostrider. It still has to be able to catch its prey, which it's not fast enough to do. And faster aircraft can still prevent it from disengaging. Speed is life in air combat.
>And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."
What are we, on reddit? You're purposely being snide and also purposely misinterpreting what I've written. Stealth itself, as a concept, is not worthless. The F-35's stealth technology has been compromised, therefore it is of little value against an adversary such as China or Russia.
>Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.
I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.
> I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.
I think @greedo self-outed with the "quit reading the press" comment... posturing some secret source of information more authorititive than the damning reports from test pilots, pentagon office of testing, etc... Lockheed's PR dept maybe.
Thing is, everyone has an axe to grind with the F-35. Despite its shortcomings, its all we have in the pipeline, until the 6th gen fighters come online in a decade or so. Without something like the F-35 paired with the F-22, we have no chance of penetrating a modern IAD.
How am I misinterpreting what you've written. You said "stealth is mostly worthless" a statement that is factually incorrect. You also are speculating as to how much technology the Chinese have stolen, and how easily that technology is to integrate into their own airframes, and how easy to counteract with their AD technology.
The idea that the Chinese can just steal some autocad drawings and crank out competitive aircraft isn't realistic. They lack the experience in engine design and manufacturing for starters. Much of their military technology is either licensed from Russia, and then reverse engineered. Yet they still can't produce an engine even close to the PWF135.
And speed isn't life in air combat. Situational awareness is. And someone flying a POS MIG/Sukhoi will get slapped by a slower aircraft if the MIG is unable to detect, track and engage the F-35. Ask the Iraqi's how well they did running away to Iran? Ask them how their MIG-25s did against slower F-15s? Or ask the Syrians why they stopped flying Foxbats over Israel once the Israelis got the slower F-15. The reason is because top end speed isn't the be all and end all of fighter performance.
And thanks for the ad hominem at the end. Nice to know that you've run out of logic and facts for your arguments.
>The idea that the Chinese can just steal some autocad drawings and crank out competitive aircraft isn't realistic. They lack the experience in engine design and manufacturing for starters. Much of their military technology is either licensed from Russia, and then reverse engineered. Yet they still can't produce an engine even close to the PWF135.
Yeah those silly Chinks aren't smart enough. Huaaaah, America!
It's not a matter of smart enough. It's a matter of experience, institutional knowledge, workers skilled in the necessary tasks. The Chinese are plenty smart, despite your strawman.
Look how they're pursuing a carrier fleet. Are they trying to build a CVN immediately? Nope, they're taking incremental steps with a secondhand refurbished conventional carrier. Iterating towards a long term goal, because they know war isn't Starcraft.
It's why when they wanted to develop a modern 4th gen fighter, they partnered with the Israelis to leverage the Lavi designs that became the J10.
You can be snide and set up strawmen, or you can back up your statements with facts, not ill-informed opinions.
People watch Top Gun too much and think everyone is zooming around the sky on their own, pulling dumbass maneuvers. Or they think that reading a Tom Clancy novel means they know how the military functions.
I think you're forgetting that the f35 carries all its stores internally, and can reach that speed and pull those turns fully loaded. In order for an f16 to reach its top speed or pull 9g it has to be in a clean configuration, meaning just two sidewinders and no external fuel.
It's not a completely different issue. The F-35 can't do the things that the parent post suggested it could to avoid the cheaper interceptors, because it's too slow to avoid the engagement and too cumbersome to win a dogfight.
It's a Zerg rush, the darn things don't even need weapons. They can FOD the engine out. Enough strikes might damage the airframe critically. Send them each with a small capsule of Mercury and Gallium for extra fun.
Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel.
So again, how are you going to get these 100k ball bearings up to 20k AGI? Your slow, cheap drones are just going to loiter up there and hope an F-35 flies into their web?
It's not like the air forces of the worlds would be ignorant of this "surprise" tactic. And the methodology of targeting an F-35 with a cascade of ball bearings is conveniently left out of your scenario.
>Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel.
Yeah, so, what's your point?
It's obviously not a well developed plan. Nevertheless, considering the costs of repair, sortie interval, loiter time, all of the other limits imposed by having so few very units of expensive aircraft opens them up to novel attacks. As to how to get the things to stay up there? Balloons are one way, large solar panel wings which could be jettisoned is another. Such a plan might not even have to work well, it might be enough to cause decision makers to keep the fighters grounded.
Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue.
I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff.
I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
Can only afford a few 100 F-35s? You know we're planning on buying over 2000?
If you think jets are so delicate, you haven't been paying attention to the mishap rate with drones. It's not like an RC model you're controlling within sight. You're operating them at ranges where lag is significant, where control links can be jammed, where GPS is easily spoofed, and where current performance is similar to a small Cessna.
How pray tell, is a small, cheap drone going to be able to carry a high power laser or "high energy RF" weapon (whatever that is) to the altitude that modern jets operate at? And if these "high energy RF" weapons are available, why wouldn't they be deployed on fighters, which can carry heavier weapons than drones, and have more surplus electrical capacity to power them?
It's easy to come up with armchair tactics when it's all Starcraft you're drawing upon. But the military doesn't work like that. Weapons take time to design, to implement, to refine. You can't just set your factories up to build UNIT X and ZERG!
What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
I doubt that there will be more than some technology demonstrators in less than four years.
And everyone is forgetting that with small size comes small range and payload. Small range means your opponent has to get close to you, exposing themselves. The article has some huge assumptions, at least concerning attacking a naval ship (which is far easier than an aircraft that can outperform a drone). The idea that an Aegis cruiser is going to let a fishing boat launch a significant number of drones without getting perforated by its MK-45 is a non-starter.
You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on them? The idea that these would pose more of a threat than a flock of geese to a modern fighter is laughable.
And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.
They'd be autonomous, with instructions like "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone", so jamming their control signals wouldn't cause any major problems. Sure, they might not be able to get new orders (retreat, chase another target) but that's a problem for any plane, drone or not.
Flight time/range - if the wings are large enough drones can be powered by solar panels and run forever  but we can safely assume that combat drones will be heavier and be capable of high acceleration and maneuverability so they would probably be powered by battery packs charged before take-off. You might think that's a limitation but battery tech is improving to the point where this will be viable by the the next conflict.
You're thinking of them wrong. They're not meant to compete with $100m planes. They're so cheap that they could be used as cheap guided missiles. They only need to collide with the enemy plane to achieve the win condition. Considering how light and maneuverable they will be, that should be simple.
Creating an autonomous AI that will "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone" is easy to type, not so easy to implement. First, the drone would have to detect its opponents. How? Is it going to carry radar? Carry IR sensors? Both of those cost money. Then it has to discriminate between a drone and an aircraft. How? Drones look like fighters/bombers/civilian airframes, tankers, helicopters, etc etc. Discrimination will be a huge problem.
Batteries don't have the energy density for powering high performance aircraft. They can't even power something along the lines of a Cessna 172. Assuming battery tech will take off is just handwaving.
What everyone seems to be espousing is already in place: SAMs. SAMs can be autonomous, have the performance and range to shoot down any aircraft. The current generation of Western and Russian SAMs are all excellent. The question is whether they'll be good enough to defeat stealth technology. The jury is still out on it.
LtGen Riper disagrees . The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win.
Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K?
Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats.
> Cheap drones are not going to be carrying...
Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application.
> How are your "light comms" going to work at night...
> ...or in inclement weather...
Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing.
> Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K?
LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals . So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016.
> ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously...
When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game.
> ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone?
A $5 bullet probably took down a $40 million F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia in the late 90s. You can always fill the sky with lead. No aircraft is impervious to the "quantity" argument. The F-35 would have a better chance at evading it and delivering its payload than a slow and low A-10 though.
hmm. I thought it worked like this "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." 
"Discouraged workers are a subset of persons marginally attached to the labor force. The marginally attached are those persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."
I don't think it's connected to insurance benefits. I think the statistic is dumb, because it should count people who are available to work but aren't.
On the other hand, if you aren't looking, maybe you really aren't available.
How would .gov be able to tell if person "actively looked" and "are available" for work if was not tied to the EI benefits?
If your collecting benefits your filing a report stating that you are/looking & available, if your not collecting EI benefits, your not filing report, your likely not counted as "officially unemployed".
You may fall into the broader U6 unemployment numbers that u/roofus mentions below.
Had a tough time finding the statistic, maybe it has changed a bit since 2009 . It seems like those uses are a tiny fraction of what we use oil for. Transportation is like 70% of the usage. 1 cent worth of lubricant turning into 10 cents worth of lubricant doesn't seem like a big deal when you buy a $10 electric motor.
Oil got expensive. People and industry got more efficient at using oil. Oil is cheap. who cares? we're much more efficient at using oil. The painful part is switching to 30mpg cars.
To put it another way, pre-boom you budget $100/month. gas gets expensive, and turns out to be $200/month. People carpool, or turn down the thermostat, or get a more efficient car, to get back to the $100/month budget. Gas prices, fall so under the new system it's only $50/month.
That $50 is nice, but not as nice as that $100 was painful.
Possibly a different example can shine some light on the matter. Imagine getting a group of people who are over 30 and do not have a significant other. Then say, "Those people who have not gone on a date in the last 4 weeks are not single because they don't want to have someone in their lives".
Imagine a telling a group of obese people "Those people who have not gone on a diet in the last 4 weeks are not overweight because they don't want to be slim".
"Anyone who has not had an address in 4 weeks is not homeless because they do not desire a home".
You can probably imagine hundreds more scenarios. When faced with repeated failure, many people fail to act in their own interests. In fact, I don't think the unemployment number is necessarily dumb -- it measures the number of unemployed people who have not given up hope of working. But we really need a measure of all the people who have given up hope, but still want to work.
What's unfortunate is the attitude that your question implies (and I'm not actually suggesting that you have this attitude, though it is very common): it is easy to think that people who have given up want the failure that they now experience. Normally this is not the case.
I once saw a homeless person trying to explain to someone their predicament. I don't remember their exact words, but it was something like this: "It's -5 degrees C today. I live in a cardboard box on the side walk. Do you really think that I wouldn't rather sleep in a warm bed? But I've got a lot of problems and this is the best that I can do right now." Followed by considerable profanity (probably their case would have been easier to follow for the listener had that been omitted).
> One thing to keep in mind, they're young. If they save the extra money, they've got a loooong time for compound interest to work on those dollars.
But isn't that the exact opposite of what you want to happen? It you want to stimulate the economy, you want people to spend more money now. College graduates taking the money they save from reduced loan payments and putting it in a 401k doesn't do that, but giving a formerly unemployed person a job so they can buy new clothes and a car does.
Don't let the buzzfeed source put you off of the article, it's pretty good.
I really like the day fine idea, seems like it would lessen the incentive to ticket to generate lots of revenue. An obvious fix for the overworked courts is simply bring in a pay stub or tax return. If you don't you get the max fine. (Perhaps a week or two to bring in the documentation and revise the fine down)
Fines are effective. Governments are going to do something with the money. Picking a price curve that closely matches actual cost of running the department seems better than what we do now. Yes, officers will have a preference for pulling over a ferarri instead of some beat up old honda, but with all of the automation the article talked about, it seems like the times an officer has a choice between the two are rare. If the policy is pull over everyone breaking the law, officers would have to account for not pulling over cheap cars.
Now, i could see a good argument for simply requiring public service from everyone. The thing we're all limited by is time. 10 hours of a rich guy's time is just as valuable as 10 hours of a poor guy's time (to them at least). Of course, you're not really proposing this as an alternative, you appear to be saying because it's not perfect, it's not worth doing.
Yeah, it is, it also tries to paint it in a positive light, and makes it clear that while perhaps what Port Arthur is doing may be unsavory to some, its not illegal, and its certainly no Ferguson, MO either.
bullshit. People get rich on the unpaid labor of others. If nothing else, he would have less money if microsoft didn't participate in the anti-poaching scandal. It's clearly not his fault, but he got money because his corporation didn't pay market wages.
This is, perhaps, a little harsh. I don't think he's a villain. I've never met the man, but i'm sure he's a decent guy. But you have to admit, his net worth is not a perfect reckoning of the value he created in the world. He's rich. good for him. Some of that money came from him, as an owner, colluding to not pay fair wages. This is just the most recent example. There was the whole temp workers thing. Microsoft has a fairly shady history.
"bullshit" (c). You automatically assume that under other conditions these workers would have made more money. In many similar cases though, they would have stayed unemployed. So you have to prove the point that somebody made some actual wealth from underpaying these workers. Which is possible, but not automatically true.
Also, I was born and lived half of my life in Soviet Union. I know what you're talking about and experienced it first hand. I've also experienced big time what happens when it doesn't work (and so far there's no good example in the world of it working sustainably).
I don't really have a way to judge the scale. I'd guess the lion's share of the operating costs go to the crew (60!).
Moving that thing's fat ass around probably uses a ton of fuel. I'm sure marine diesel spews out its share of co2, but more than a jet? I thought boats were super efficient relative to air travel.
I guess if your point is, rich guys screwing around shouldn't produce CO2, then, yeah, anything over 0 is bad. That seems unrealistic. any idea how to get a handle on how bad it is? how many cars worth of pollution it makes?
Why does it matter? Yes he's got a douche-boat with a helipad and 60 staff. It's obviously an extravagance that he chooses to enjoy.
In no way does it negate his good work, and in no way does his good work negate his douchery. Trying to scientifically measure the impact of the yacht is a pointless distraction. I'm certainly not going to go around counting how many miles of gleefully fuel inefficient driving I do - which seems like a pre-requisite to judging other peoples environmental impact.
The only important question is: How do we make sure this never happens again, because it sure as hell wasn't intentional and lessons can be learned.