Muscle2002

How does he define "most violent"? Similarly, how do you or scholars you've read define it? I'm being serious and not trying to provoke.

Agreed.

Disagree...unless the CTS defines when you should cancel IFR and he did it before then. Having such a restriction almost seems to contradict the whole point of pilot training in that you want to build airmanship, decision making along with operating an airplane.

You're probably right, but I would venture the majority of Viper pilots experienced this the first few times they flew the aircraft. Last time I checked neither the T-37, T-6 or T-38 use a pitch rate/AoA command system for landing which requires different compensation. I flew Strike Eagles, or Mudhens as you probably call them. Okay, I'm telling you what I saw and the reasoning behind it.

A comptroller? https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123311820

Yes...I guess the irony was lost on him when he discussed the need for more face-to-face interaction and less reliance on email via an email.

Seriously? Is this by the AF in general? I wouldn't be surprised. In every OG I've been in, WIC DG was held in much higher regard...of course, leaders in the OG generally understand what it means to earn that distinction as opposed to the shoes outside the OG.

If this were a real squadron bar, I would bring the requisite handle as penance.

I think it was a wash in terms of who was a better Peter Parker. Where I thought the latest rendition was better was in the development of Parker's history with respect to how he came to live with his aunt and uncle and the whereabouts of his parents. I also thought Parker's love interest was more intriguing than in the 2002 version.

Agreed Hollywood's lack of originality in rebooting/remaking movies is incredible (or maybe not). I will say, however, that the new Amazing Spiderman was better than the 2002 version with Tobey Maguire.

I do. That my answer didn't meet your standard of rigorous proof for understanding is unfortunate, but the prospects of writing a tome on BO.net regarding epistemology and ontology is a fruitless effort as ZRooster99 attested to in his post...there will be things I don't understand according to you; and there are points I've tried to elucidate that I don't think you understand. Or at least neither one of us feels inclined to spend all day trying to convey our points via BO. We disagree...but that's the beauty of living in America where discourse is generally possible. Maybe I've studied the incorrect texts, but I've gathered that there is a delineation between strong and weak atheism. Accordingly, some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Simply lacking a belief in gods is considered the weak atheistic position, whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as strong atheism. In all honesty, however, I'm not an expert in this field, so my understanding of the deeper ideas may be immature. With that, I'll relent from further discussion as I think our points have been made and we could go round and round discussing semantics of belief/non-belief without either side conceding. Furthermore, I don't want to piss off the rest of the forum. Thank you for providing a spirited discussion.

Not confused...my perspicacity was wanting for a better word choice, but I couldn't find one. I don't completely agree with your statement as it depends on whether you adhere to strong/positive or weak/negative atheism, but I understand what you mean. Okay, if that's the reason, then fine. It seemed antithetical to what we fight for, however, when one gloats over the decision in part because it restricted the rights of religious groups. It's not lost on me that you argue that imposing a religiously-based procedure on minors is also antithetical to our country's values...these issues, at least IMO, are far more complex than they first appear. You're right that basic human rights should not fall to second place behind religious liberty. I think the argument you used regarding the inviolability of another human body, though, when applied to a different, but far more controversial topic falls on deaf ears...however, as this is the "WTF Thread" I don't think we need to open that can of worms. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here.

Okay, I don't disagree with you there. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. That is, why does a worldview devoid of religion (this is an assumption), but one that purports to be highly tolerant (again another assumption) and one that thrives in a pluralistic society allow for discrimination of another worldview that espouses some sort of religious belief? I fully understand that all worldviews have adherents who fail to live out the ideology of their beliefs thereby generating bad reputations. It's reasonable (or should be) to debate ideas associated with various worldviews (i.e. to let the merits of the ideas stand alone), but denouncing a philosophy solely on the ground of the actions of its followers can be shortsighted (I'll be the first to admit that I'm culpable of said shortsightedness). It seems strange to me to relish in another group's misfortune (such as those citizens of Cologne desiring religiously based medical procedures) based solely on their religion. Had the tables been turned and the decision restricted followers of an irreligious worldview, would the support been the same? In fact, it's not a leap to suggest irreligious philosophies are but a "religion" of a different ilk. Instead of faith in a deity/deities/some other power, adherents (whether weak or strong atheism/agnosticism) adhere to a "belief" (poor word choice, I know) lacking in theistic overtones. Merriam-Webster even allocates a description befitting such an idea: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In short (or not, in this case), I guess that unless the most sacred rights suffer violation, people should be allowed to act according to their religious/irreligious beliefs. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's believed by various groups, but I don't think it the place of the government to restrict people's actions solely because they were based on a worldview and not a compelling medical reason. I don't normally quote the ACLU (as they are a group whose ideas are at times incongruous with my own), but in their Amici Curae brief for Alvarez vs. the US it was wisely stated: "The First Amendment was meant to ensure that the government would not become the arbiter of truth in the marketplace of ideas; it was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.” Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 24 (1971)." It's dangerous (in terms of preserving individual freedom) when the government plays the role of authority on what are valid/invalid ideas. Disclaimer: just because I quoted the ACLU who helped argue against the Stolen Valor Act does not imply my support of the Court's decision.

So an abhorrence of those who deny rights to some is the impetus for similar action? Or are some rights more sacrosanct than others?

Is my sarcasm detector INOP or are you serious?

"Nah, I don't really feel like executing an element CBU pop-attack for the FRA...it would be better to do a JDAM HARB." Any wingman: "Yep, I was blind." "SNIPER on bombers...brilliant."

I did--my post was not to quibble, but to only point out the reality of today to the younger folks like the original poster.

It depends on how you define bad deal. I've known a few whose patch earned them a chance to spend months advising at a Saudi "weapons school"...they were not impressed with their act nor felt it worth the time/money the USAF spent to train them to be WOs. I'm sure others can attest to this fact, but there are W-prefix billets in the AOR that could be filled by a non-patchwearer. It's cool that the reputation of the patch is highly esteemed and thus in high demand, but leadership needs to look at actual requirements to prevent running ragged the WO corps with specious personnel requirements.

Another thing I've found interesting is that when someone pushes the rules/boundaries to accomplish the mission and results like those in the above story come about, the pilot is recognized. On the other hand, if the same pushing of the rules/boundaries to accomplish the mission either results in failure or doesn't seem as heroic by superiors (even though ground troops were provided air cover), then that pilot is often punished. Case in point, two separate OEF missions both involving thunderstorms...one crew receives the MacKay trophy by flying IMC on the TF radar (prohibited and not something trained to anymore, not to mention risky even by old school standards), while another provides crucial overwatch and sustains minor hail-damage resulting in the crew being grounded. The recognition process is completely subjective. Bottomline, though, whether Rudy received recognition or not, having known him from the zoo, he wouldn't care and cares more about earning the respect of his peers, which I know he has.

Another well-deserved recognition in line with the 2d Lt receiving an AM (as opposed to a finance troop and the BSM). https://www.spangdahl...sp?id=123305486

Yeah, the Fighting Falcon is easy to land, but it's not necessarily easy to land well. It's the only aircraft I've flown where I was told I needed to "bump" the stick forward as I touch down to counter the change in pitch rate and prevent getting airborne again.

I didn't say 100% relative humidity...I said a 100% increase from 40% RH, which equates to 80% RH, thus resulting in a 400' DA correction. The RH correction makes sense, it's just not something I've seen in the handful of aircraft I've flown to this point.

Copy, but a 100% humidity increase from 40% is still only a 400' increase in density altitude. Of course, that probably affects helicopters more than fixed wing aircraft. Is that correction specific to thrust?

Humidity doesn't really affect available thrust, but the increase of water in the air displaces air molecules decreasing air density which affects dynamic pressure and thus lift.

Not trying to turn this into a religious vs. irreligious thread, but the atrocities committed as a natural outworking of nihilism and "blood and soil" thinking outnumber the losses in the examples you gave. On both sides, warped versions of ideologies led to loss of life.