By about the early 20th century academicans kind of had the goods on that ancient (Greek era) philosophers argument.

It's neither.
Complex evolutionary diversity is how it works.

It's called chaos theory but only because it's all too complicated to be predictive, but it is utterly intuitive to recognize a coherent mechanical system at work.

Actually the hypothesis you're making was published back in the 80s and soundly falsified by the scientific community, which used actual findings from tens of thousands of specimens taken all over the world, which clearly showed as much genetic variation within any "race" grouping as there exists outside the grouping.
That literally concludes that racial labelling is cosmetic and non-sequiteur.




@OP
This was predicted back in the 90s, it was termed "neo-Eugenics" back then.
What it ultimately relates to is an ill-informed but apparently well meaning social movement which has produced a pseudoscience combining urban celebrations like animal husbandry, pop-psychology and commercial-media cooked ideas about genetic research.
What it really boils down to is you just have to want to impose races, and then you try to find ways to argue yourself to satisfaction (delusion), at which point you tell others.
The whole thing is the product of racists that don't think they're racists. Real racists never do, they just pass laws for cosmetically selective sociopolitical infrastructure and shrug with their arms in the air when pickets result.

I think we can all empathize with an expression like holy quacamole it's fricken freezing here.

Hot again here but. Goddamned southern hemisphere. I want snow. To complain about that. I hate heat, complaining about it doesn't make you feel any better. Doing a dance makes you feel better about cold.

Cold is much cooler than heat.

You make it sound like it's up to you who gets attracted.
It is up to you who you like, but you don't want it on a list of requisition.

It just doesn't work those ways, the common failing ways.

You could just try being a friendly, decent person and if you like someone do what you would like and if you don't do what you would like and in the meantime do what you would like...

but then you'd never be able to blame anyone else when things went wrong? *shrug*

For prosperity, the B2 Spirit uses a completely different kind of stealth, much more like true stealth but so prohibitively expensive the crew claim is basically they never get to fly them because it has to be recoated in absorptive material at a ridiculous cost, after only 3 flights.

you really needed me to walk you through this review of what I posted?
c'mon man, let it settle and the shift in an accurate perception becalm before kicking.

To give a technological example,

F-117, suppresses emissions and disperses transmission signals, meaning basically if you shine a radar on an F-117 the beam goes off in a bunch of other directions and only a piece the size of a pidgeon returns to the antennae.
But if you've got a whole field of antennae, there's an F-117 in the middle of the field, you flood the field with transmissions and you network all the antennaes just like a radio-telescope and there you have how EWR and certain other systems work.
The antennae pick up all the F-117 signals and see it just as if it had no stealth at all.

That's largely the kind of stealth used in the F-35 and F-22. It's useless against the Russians or the French or any major power in open warfare, completely useless and very expensive.

Against individual aircraft however, like an interceptor trying to fire on you, the little missile seeker head is never going to pick up enough return signal or IR signature to track you, not unless he was right up your tailpipe, outmanoeuvring you, and fired ballistic.

Well here's the thing, the biggest competitor is people using Russian equipment and specifically Flankers, more specifically the Su-30. It datalinks four other fighters and networks all sensor information, so that one Flanker paints you, all four of them pick up little bits of your return signal and networks them to make a bigger signal, and any of the four, the closest one actually fires on you, using sensor data from the other Flankers.
That's the Russian system, foils stealth, but only an Su-30 or a MiG-31 can establish the datalink, you need one of those as a controller but the other fighters can be any late model Russian fighter, they started devloping remote datalink back in 1958 and installed it since 64 I think.

So the Eurofighter being designed to counter the Flanker, stealth is useless and not what it needs for its role. It's defeated by any of the newer Flanker purchases out there.
The only way to beat a datalinked set of modern Flankers or similar is with superior agility and sustained energy through manoeuvres. The same way you defeated missile fire in Vietnam. Yes the Raptor can do that too but the Eurofighter does it just as well, and so does any of the latest "SuperFlanker" demonstrators sold by Russia, including the version sold to India. Whether the F-35 can live up to these old fashioned airframe high performance qualities remains to be seen.

Not done with lightsabres, but using the same old rules and technological array of choices that every body has, just choosing to be different sometimes. I mean seriously, you americans are such kidders with the whole superman thing.

It's pretty low brow that some people actually think their country has unique advanced technology.

Science is the technology and available to all nations equally, aside from specific industrial secrets but that's like saying because Iran doesn't have access to contemporary nuclear research that they don't know anything about quantum mechanics, when the truth is they know just as much about nuclear physics as anybody else, provided their scientists qualify at the same international standard interning/fellowshipping at the same international univerisities/multinationals as everybody else, which in several cases they do.

The limiter is industrial capacity and GNP.

Flankers, Hornets, Eurofighters, the Tornado, Mirages/Rafale, the MiGs, Vipers, F-35, Raptor, these are all independent designs at contemporary technological standards.
The Flanker was first introduced decades after the Eagle, so is more advanced. The Raptor introduced decades after the first Flanker, so is more advanced.
It aint rocket science, but it aint got anything to do with patriotically secret technologies, there's no such thing. You're talking about movie fiction, where nobody is as good as the US unless they copied them. It's fiction.


Oh and the reason, not capability that some nations like Britain, France and Sweden and until recently Russia decided not to pursue "stealth qualities" to the same degree as the US new designs was because of a predictable fault and the true role of High Survivability Features (stealth is an incorrect term for the technology used by media),

Networked EWR systems like those used in any major power's own airspace immediately foils all directional stealth features (receivers are literally on every facing of the aircraft in towers and antennae all over the enemy landscape, even communications towers at tv studios can be used to spot stealth planes and was, historically in Bagdad).
Only absorptive stealth features are effective in open warfare against a modern military power on their home soil.
You can't invade with F-35s and Raptors. You can police somewhere who's military infrastructure you've already destroyed.

What "stealth" really does for you is making it harder for missile seeker heads to stay locked on you, it is easier to defeat enemy missile fire with "stealth features", hence why engineers call them high survivability features instead.

There are other things to help defeat missile fire, extreme agility and plenty of excess thrust in something nimble with some terrific supersonic acceleration, that does it just as well as "stealth". The object is to defeat missile energy before it hits you, and it's much easier working against its fuel supply than it is its seeker avionics.

Eurofighters were specifically designed to defeat Flankers. Flanker beats Eagle, Eurofighter beats Flanker, F-22 beats Flanker. Why can't we just be happy with that?

I'm a fairly logical thinker, with good grounding in academics and the entire US legal structure gives me significant pause.
A lot of asian countries that give far greater pause, but comparing rotten apples isn't as good as finding a clean ripe one.

There is a ridiculously tremendous accord for institutionalized corruption throughout the US legal system from county to federal level. Just so fell in love with gangsters I guess.

1. The Soviets had Germany surely and entirely defeated by mid 1943 (Battle of the Kuban as follow up to Stalingrad), nothing the US or England did in any way affected it or the outcome of the war. By Kursk even Hitler knew the war was lost and it was the Front against the USSR which did it. They were outnumbered 5 to 1 in men and 2 to 1 in equipment and upwards on every eastern front from then until the end of the war, nothing that happened in the west, not any materiel supply from the west, none of it had any genuine strategic impact on the conclusion of the war for Germany.
The only question, which was openly discussed between the both Presidents and Churchill was the role western powers would have in continental Europe after the war was over, or if they'd just let the Soviet Union control everything from the Bering Strait to France.
That's what US/British continued offensives from the Torch landings onwards really (the British ULTRA had already cracked all German comms codes), nothing from this point had any effect on the outcome of the war from the Russian side. As it was the Germans were so efficient even in defeat, they managed to concentrate all forces in the west in December and all forces in the east in March.
Really, all forces, just about every fighter plane over here, then hang on guys, move a thousand km that way and fight. They accomplished that, so you wouldn't see much difference in the size of force commitment to any counteroffensives whether or not the west was involved in the conclusion of the war, they would have no greater impact against the three primary Soviet offensives, each with more capacity for warfare than the entire German military twice over at this point, we're talking about three entire air armies bigger than the entire Luftwaffe on each battlefront, with equivalent equipment or better, and equal training (Soviets modernized in late 1942 and opened up Ace schools for advanced pilot training).

An La-7 is just plain better than an Fw-190 of any sort. A Yak-9, 9U or late 7B is easily as good as the best hunter-Messer 109G-10 or late G-14/AS, at low altitude at least which is where all the fighting at that stage became (supporting ground attack aircraft at fairly low alt). With numbers and pilot equivalence, the math is they win no matter what you do. That is the truth about WW2 and note I didn't put lend lease aircraft in there, they just weren't needed anything like as much as the US patriotic media claims, they just plain weren't. The only battle lend-lease US materiel was decisive was in the Kuban, but that German force would've been swallowed up anyway by the advance from the new industrial plants now producing at maximum capacity (thousands of excellent planes, tanks and guns per month). It was one battle in a sea of bigger battles the Russians won with no help, because they relocated industry just before the invasion. That won the war in Europe, nothing else. Nothing. Battle of Britain, occupied France, Africa/Med, allied/puppet treaties, none of it made any difference to the outcome of the war from that point.

2. The British deveoped technology to defeat the U-boats, what they lacked was the industrial power to challenge a Germany which now had the industries of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland and France at their disposal and were friendly with a few others like Spain, Hungary, Italy, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Finland, the Swedes. They were even sweet talking the Iraqi's or Iranians, can't remember which one, they gave them Fw-190A fighters with downgraded armament, they kept using them after the war. Iraq maybe?

What I'm saying is the British simply didn't have the industrial economy to produce an intercontinental bomber, the US had the private sector industrial complex to work with using competition bidding for military contracts, which allowed for profiteering but also backed by a massive industrial capacity meant for reliable, state of the art equipment with very friendly terms on supporting the right war effort.

It was very cool what the US was doing, industrially supporting the war efforts of beleaguered nations, it was fairly clear the Axis of WW2 were from the beginning, extremely aggressive by nature. It was like helping against the school bully.

But the 1cm wavelength radar set was all British and that, when fitted to an American ultra-long range maritime patroller like the B-24 "Liberator", is what won the U-boat war as the single most significant introduction in terms of numbers destroyed and areas of ocean completely cleared of U-boat activity.

British technology, US industry, it was a winning combination when you're already flat out building Spitfires, developing Tempests, building battleships, updating old battleships, repairing battleships, replacing sunk aircraft carriers, replacing entire squadrons of bombers lost in action due to navigational error (lost 30-something over Norway once, the boss got sacked/replaced for that and air force laid low with press meets for a while, then y'know Coventry gets bombed and it's all forgotten).

3. England is a nuclear power. It is capable of lobbing Trident D4 SLBMs on DC if it felt like it, a frew hundred warheads actually, no lie. The nukes themselves are home cooked and actually rate well advanced in contemporary tech, at least as good as anything local.
Sure that'd be suicidal but that's the point of MAD, which essentially is still the watchword in relations between nuclear powers.
Let's say the school bully picked up a brick to smash you in the head with, well at this point it's do or die because he's going to do such bad damage anyway, you have to do whatever you can't regardless of any plan for success or failure. You're done either way.
That's MAD, the nuclear policy. If you're going to bully me, and you have nukes, and I have nukes, in order to argue with you I must be prepared to use my nukes, I'm dead either way.
MAD is the guarantee that any nuclear power will respond to direct aggression (state of warfare) by any other nuclear power with the use of nuclear weapons.
It was actually established in 1958 in relation to the threat of a formal Soviet move into East Germany which would wind up in an invasion of Western Germany (Soviet "reunification"). NATO formally declared that any move into East Germany by Soviet forces under the direct command of the Kremlin would result in breach of an international treaty, and lead to a nuclear response by the United States. To push their point home the US put Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which could reach within Soviet borders as far as their major military training academies. It was in response to this that the Soviet tried to put MRBM, IRBM and even a stockpile of tactical nukes in Cuba.

Rest assured that because of how nukes devastate the planet, any nuclear power which seriously threatens another nuclear power is going to get nuked first. That's MAD. So don't do it.

That means Britain too, genius.

It was I think, a natural but subjective human response from someone who happens to be a peace officer, but in this case it was him, personally that was surprised and slightly fearful of the manoeuvre you pulled.

He was unaccustomed to it. Your maintaining your calm, whilst he spat the dummy was an excellent move.
He responded personally instead of as a peace officer, was shocked and reacted with the lights and authority of the badge. But it was a personal thing of unfamiliarity.

It was better that you didn't argue and engage his frustration. It seems he thought better of it considering how relaxed and in control you obviously were, but once you're committed to a line of thought with some authority, you have to follow through.

Would've been more honest if he just let you off at the door, and even mentioned he just unfamiliar with the driving manoeuvre, thought it was dangerous driving, now he sees you in control and calm, he sees that you knew what you were doing.

And...aren't you allowed to exceed the limit for a limited period when overtaking?

Sustained (successful) warfare is two things:
industry
attrition

Iran couldn't take on the IRA, Indonesia would kick their butt.

okay just to clear things up a bit, are we talking with celebrities and movie stars or regular people?

Because seriously most people can't drive for $hit.

ooh a non-sequiteur contest.


No man has ever lied.

Yes I agree, nicely articulated thoughts too by the way,

I believe the 'quasi-mysticism' you romanticised maybe related to practicable japanese philosophies/religions to have filtered through martial arts and naturopathy circles since the 1930s, like mahayana-buddhism (shugenja), esoteric study traditions (ryuha), these cultural aspects filter across within karate dojos and arts venues, ecclectic subcultures of people start to spread their word around, next thing wiccans are talking about tibetan mikkyo and have no idea they are and it's kinda interesting.

Point I was making, sorry about that. I rant.

What you probably recognized was some of the pragmatism in this kind of approach, which is reminiscent of the old wizard in the Karate Kid, with wise words and a heavy stick when he needs that. It's pragmatic, being in the moment, mind/body/spirit as one, that you see the most and are as you indeed are.

It is a kind of quasi-mysticism, the classical wise old master way of looking at the world. It's not a bad skill to have in your toolbox.



edited to save double-posting, remember to absolutely regard all (your) hypotheses as falsifiable, a thing to be practised in thought, word and deed so as to become routine with all new thoughts. Keeps feet on the ground, biggest danger with big minds ;)
sure might sound weird to say but it's true, genuine maturity is proportionate with humility, it's the biggest tell on how much you can really cope with before losing the plot.
You seem pretty polite though, I'm sure not a concern.

The really sad thing is in this country if the burglar shot himself with a gun he brought because he tripped over a piece of furniture, he could probably sue the house owner.

One memorable case in Sydney a couple of years ago that was in the newspapers said a burglar sued the owner of a house successfully because he broke his arm tripping over some furniture. Criminal charges for the burglary, but we have victims compensation part of government welfare system so can still be awarded damages even if committed a crime to become injured.
It's kind of a silly rule most of the time but it's part of the whole justice and welfare systems with ideas of rehabilitation, etc. I guess sometimes it must work or nobody sane would have made it a rule. You're definitely not allowed to shoot people for trespassing over here or anything, so the public still has the right to be protected from harm on your property even if it is your property.

Personally, burglar shoots off his balls? Hilarious. Yeah ambulance, police and everything but I'm gonna laugh calling them. Knock his head a touch with a boot if he gives me any trouble. Any way you cut it if this didn't teach someone a lesson they can't be taught.

Iranian Navy

Kilo-class subs are extremely quiet coastal patrol subs, fast enough to shadow fleet units in home waters (typical job, sub screening basically, they're much quieter than a nuclear sub and the natural enemy of a NATO hunter-killer).
Harpoons can take one pretty easy but you need ideal conditions. Best way to kill these is with torpedos or depth charges, old school.

Noisier subs are targets for more modern ASW equipment, but Kilos are really quiet.

Iranian corvettes are useless in warfare as anything but reserve light patrollers, missile launchers are for show, a row boat would outrun these boats.
Their frigates have 4-8 antishipping missiles basically as good as an early series Harpoon or any similar missile used in Europe in the 80s-90s, they have a big warhead though (a little under quarter of a ton of high explosive), with an armour-punch ahead of it (timed fuse).
They're chinese made but the technology is pretty simple, inertial midcourse and radar terminal phase, the claim is ECCM is good (hard to jam).
The current standard on new antiship missiles is datalinking, GPS and even AI logarithms. It's not that modern, but the same thing as most of the US weapons stockpile out there and just as dangerous to enemies.

Keep in mind a military as big as the US, and even several other major (not super-) powers, only about 10% of the troops actually get to use the great new equipment everything thinks is the current standard. When the nuclear powered missile cruiser was the next big thing and the California commissioned, most of the navy was still running around with oil burning gunboats.

As it is the current NATO air defence system in majority usage including by US forces is still an 80s piece of technology, the current Russian standard throughout the fleets is at least a full generation ahead.
Oh yes the US has caught up, so has European-NATO, with new terrific coordinated air defence systems a generation ahead of Aegis, well Aegis is at the moment outdated and it's mostly what you've got.

That said, the Iranians are worse off. They have to buy materiel that was outdated back in the 80s. The things major powers were replacing and so could export to small nation forces affordably in a cost recovery programme. Other than that, they have to buy off China, they're up to 2 generations behind current standard, or the Russians who won't export anything unless it's detuned to keep a step ahead of reverse engineering (ie. the way the chinese stole the Flanker design and reproduced it, but can't match current Russian Super-Flanker prototypes because they didn't get all the really good stuff exported to copy).


I wouldn't say a Coast Guard cutter could annihilate the Iranian Navy in combat, but I should certainly think even a reserve operational battlegroup would make short work of them and then have lunch.


But politically speaking you couldn't blame Iranian military leadership for believing that because US military forces are on two of their borders, with Russia to the north, that they must at least appear to be beligerent in order to maintain public order.
Unless the Iranians show direct aggression, ie. actually attack a US warship directly, then I think the best course is to just let them be for a while.

In order to assert the US has the right to internationally police sovereign territories, you must essentially declare war upon that nation, openly and formally. Those were rules set among all international bodies like the UN or League of Nations, even NATO.
The US has basically been ignoring them since 2001 and hey, I think we can all let that one slide considering...But hey it's 13 years on and the US is stating to look like the Brownshirts and bootheels of someone familiar...

So maybe the Iranians, maybe you should just sit this one out as a nation. Let the French deal with it, it'll be funny. I'll get the popcorn.

Pseudoscience is where you take anthropology which only applies to groups, and you apply these gross generalizations to individuals, which by scientific ethic is a big no-no.

This is pseudoscientific journalism, not behavioural science.

Men (nor Women) do not have any collective personality. Any group of men (or women) consists of very different varieties which comprise what is called a normal variation.

Thus it is impossible to predict individual behaviour. You can only suggest likelihoods of group behaviour because it falls within variations you can map and deal with majorities.

Clinical psychologists cannot predict individual behaviour.
Neurologists definitely can't.
The only science that even tries to is criminology. And then it's very general, like look in a shopping mall for the paedophile. Not what he had for lunch or which Mall.

Just don't text him a jpeg of your boobs, that might confuse things o_O

I think the suggestion of good and bad people is a very very relative and subjective statement, this given it is a relative observation of a person's actions and thus not particularly judgemental.

People thinking they're being judged usually has more to do with introspetive guilt than anything else.