Belesarius

I realize the source of the image is ultra partisan, but we both know that the best propaganda is true. I haven't found that imaged debunked anywhere I've seen it posted, and frankly, it is all over the place. I'm at work and my net is heavily filtered, so I'm limited in what I can do here. That being said, I think the point that the image makes is germane to the discussion. As for my blood pressure, it may be high, but frankly, it has nothing to do with the discussion here. I suspect that most of the people on this board are not raving religious lunatics or uninformed on the issue. The issue may not be all that high on the radar of some people here, but whatever. I'll take Oliphant's criticism of the source of the image as valid, and will endeavor to post better sources for information in the future, but I think that the information that the image conveys is still on point.

But is the image wrong? Is the information presented in the image factually incorrect? If the image is wrong and the people backing this bill are not flaming bigots who hate teh gheys, then fine. If the people who basically wrote the bill are raving bigots, then I think that is relevant to the conversation. I'm not religious. I'll put that out there. Not that anyone who knows me even a little should be surprised by that. And I have about zero tolerence for anyone who spreads hatred in the name of their god. Be that Fred Phelps, ISIS lunatics or any other manner of extremists. I think religious extremism is a cancer in modern society that rational people should speak out against at almost every turn. The laws in GA, TX and IN are all different from the various other similar religious protection laws in that they give those states the ability to use religion as a defense for refusal of service. The protection of your beliefs end where they begin harming others. And denying service can be very harmful. What if a grocery store owner in a small town decided that his religious beliefs say he won't sell groceris toa poor gay couple in a town? Stuff like that... I know people who's financial situation precludes them going far from where they are to get groceries. Frankly, so do you Oliphant. People that have in the past hung out on this very teamspeak. I don't want them denied service in the pissant little town that they live in because the buisness decides that they won't serve them because they are one of those scary gay people who has an agenda. Anyhow, YMMV. Edit: I may have to check out of this one... I have a lot of friends who are gay, and who have hung out on this very teamspeak. I absolutely loathe preachers who use their religion as an excuse to spread hate and fear. Anyone who wants to deny them service because they are gay is below pond scum to me. Also, this has been a settled issue here in Canada for a long time.

A wild AN-94 appears! Oh my!

Pretty concept. Chances of it flying? I wouldn't put money on it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-cops-run-amok/ We have lots of asshole cops, even here in Canada. Don't do exactly what we say and we smash your window. Note, that the paper is the National Post. Generally a pretty conservative paper.

In deference to your historiographical sense I will change the wording. Also: And a summation of why the Indiana law is different that I stole from a FARK thread on the matter: " the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA-and most state RFRAs-do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/" style="color: rgb(0, 89, 140); text-decoration: none;">Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage. Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elane-photography-llc-v-willock/" style="color: rgb(0, 89, 140); text-decoration: none;">Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party." "

Agreed! Not too technical, but a good breakdown.

All these religious protection laws are the last gasp of the bigots. The Supreme court is going to rule that gay marriage is legal and the religious right is trying to keep saying but we don't want to deal with teh gheys because they are icky. I hope Indiana leaves the law as it is. And then I hope they loose thousands of jobs to other states from it. And that other states boycott them. Let them do what they want. Then reap the motherfucking consequences. Also... a business is not a person. Refuse service to women? Refuse service to blacks? Chinese? Gays? Edited to avoid word games.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saudis-fear-iranian-control-of-yemen-due-to-this-strate-1694709328 Rundown of the strategic reasons why the Saudis are flipping out about Yemen.

Someone hit F5 a bunch of times.

And in trying to go with the forums philosophy, here is a document from ASU: http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/default/files/attachments/officer-video-cameras-roy.pdf

Oh hell yes. I support mandatory body cams for cops 3000%. Protects the cops, protects the people. Any missing footage during a shift = automatic suspension until the cause is found. If it could be done technologically, I'd say it automatically flags footage or broadcasts to the station when a weapon is drawn. Edit: 47% drop in use of force and 41% drop in complaints in San Diego. 31% drop in use of pepper spray. http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/03/26/body-cameras-shown-to-limit-use-of-force-by-san-diego-police/

I don't totally disagree with your point of view. Tweaking anyone who is visibly armed is dumb. And frankly, a lot of criminals are, well... dumb. And, yes, these are a lot of overly polarized people in the US, and here in Canada that will take up any opportunity to stir up shit. But the police also get a free pass a lot of the time when sometimes they shouldn't. I'm not fully filled in on the details, as it isn't my country or state, but from some of the reading I've done, Joe Arpeio (sp?) from the looks of things should have been locked up for civil rights violations years ago, and is still Sheriff and re-elected time and time again. Specifics of the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto. Disturbed individual, contained in a streetcar, armed with a knife. Not in the drivers seat or anything, so it's not like the vehicle was a threat. And the police shot him 8 times. The Officer was eventually charged here, but there was a lot of talk about how it was justified. Again, under the use of force model here in Ontario, there is no way the shoot was justified, as there was no immediate threat of harm to anyone. Our G20 summit here in Toronto a couple of years back also massively damaged police credibility here in Toronto. Canada is generally a pretty pro-police environment. Canadians like their law and order. But police credibility here in Toronto is about as low as I've ever seen it after a few incidents over the past couple of years. ugh, rambling... Anyhow, my point. Cops are armed. They have the power to ruin your life. Treat them with extreme caution. YMMV.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/EV-22-Osprey-AEWC-Aircraft/926796214019494 So, a EV-22 concept has a FB page. Relevent I thought, as we were talking about getting the most out of the F-35.

Once of the problems that I see fairly frequently come up (Happened here in Toronto with the G20 Summit) is that cops cover for each other a lot. And when it comes out that they lied about it, it looks really bad. The 'thin blue line' is very real. As a security guard, I understand it. I cover for my buddies too when shit gets fucked up. But a cop has a lot more power than I do, and as I said earlier, with that power, comes responsibility. It's a cliché, I know. But I think it's true. On shoot/no shoot decisions, I'm ok with any officer taking a shot when someone's life is in danger, if that is his own or an innocent bystander. But cases like the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto, where the guy is contained and no immediate threat to anyone else, well... I want the book thrown at the cop. I also think that a lot of police could benefit from shoot-house type training. I'm given to understand that a lot of police forces don't do this type of training due to lack of facilities and budget. Anyhow, YMMV.

I think there is room for positive discussion on it, but it is a VERY polarizing subject. Again, I say that from a point of view from someone who may have to use force in their job and is trained to do so if needed. But I'm also highly critical of abuse of power by the police. Mainly because I am trained in the legal use of force model in use here in my province, and I understand when that has been exceeded.

Rawr

Also, I think having rotors underneath the body of the aircraft is extremely problematic in the even of a failure of some sort. I can see this being a VERY BAD THING. Just sayin'... Edit: More random thoughts. I kinda like the idea of ducted rotors. Offers some hardening for minor collisions and possibly, with modern materials, probably greater ground fire resistance. Tho, that Sikorsky one looks like a cross between a UH60, a short bus, and a toy quad copter.

I'll get around to changing it at some point. I generally rotate several. This one amused me at the time I registered on here. I haven't found anything I find suitably epic for here as of yet.

Weak effort guys. I expect higher quality trolling on here.

My Dad had a weird obsession with the Arrow. Neat plane.

Edited the original post to include a link to the story. That's what I get for posting when not fully awake. And the engineering for that CAS-1 concept looks like a nightmare.

I'm kind of torn on this, on several levels. Because I'm trained in the Ontario Use of Force model, I'm really shocked when stuff like this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/29/good-samaritan-sues-cop-opp-over-attackhappens, and the cop is still in good standing. As someone who understands the legal framework, specifically here in Ontario, I don't understand how the SIU ruled as it did and let the guy keep his badge. Unfortunately, Police tend to get the benefit of the doubt when, I think with the level of training that they have been given, they should be held to a higher standard. YMMV

It's technically a 'helicopter' carrier, but if shit gets real in the South China Sea, how long before they order some F-35Bs? Frankly, just basing Apaches off it makes for an interesting force projection option.

Goering was apparently known for his affection towards young Luftwaffe aces who were not of noble heritage, or from good military families.