segnosaur

Modern jets win or lose based on their technological level, not speed. A jet which is hard to target and lock up on radar will beat out a fast jet virtually every time given missiles are usually fired from many miles away now. I'd also question whether they really are being "out-maneuvered" by Russian/Chinese jets. Some Russian planes do have thrust vectoring, but the quality of some of their planes has been suspect. Plus, the ability of the F35 to carry its weapons internally may help it with both its maneuverability and its speed.

Worse than that, the opposition has used "lifespan" costs as a way to introduce a type of sticker shock in a crass display of political partisanship. Only gave the costs for the first 20/30 years? Demand them for 40 years, then claim "increased costs" based on the longer time frame. (Ignoring the fact that any plane that they purchase will cost more when you give the cost for 40 years instead of 20.)

Financial numbers are hard to pin down... There does seem to be a rather nasty tendency for governments to use fighter procurement as "piggy banks". We saw that with both the F22 and F35... Cut plane purchases to pay for other programs. But since development costs stay fixed, the planes look more expensive. So, they cut down the size of the order again, which then makes the plane look even more expensive.

30 seconds of googling found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medak_Pocket Part of the civil war in eastern europe. (The Americans were involved in other parts of that war, but had nothing to do with the battle.) I should also point out that Canada was also involved in both world wars (and saw significant military action) long before the Americans got involved. I could also point out that Canada has played a larger role in some peacekeeping missions (Sinai desert, Cyprus) in which the U.S. either did not participate, or played a smaller role.

Nope. Drones certainly have a place in the military arsenal. And some day they may replace manned fighters. But, there are some significant issues that have to be resolved... lack of 360 degree situational awareness, lag time between drone and pilot. Almost all planes have had problems. Eurofighter problems: http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature50517/ Lets see, from Wikipedia: F35: ~9 years from first flight to deployment Eurofighter: 9 years F22: ~8 years Raphale: 5 years F18 Super Hornet: 4 years So, the Super Hornet did have a much shorter time to deploy, but then it wasn't exactly dealing with new technology. The F35s development time doesn't seem that far out compared to some of the other possibilities. I guess the lesson is the newer the technology, the more problems you can expect.

So, what exactly is your alternative? To not purchase any planes? We're a modern country. Air traffic in and around our country is significant. As such, we should have the ability to patrol our air space, if for no other reason than to handle the occasional wayward airliner or off-course jet e.g. the Payne Stewart incident. (And this isn't even counting the user of jets to help establish control of our northern areas.) Not buying jets means one of 2 things: - We have no ability to patrol our own airspace or: - We let the Americans do it for us, which most people would see as giving up a bit of our independence

Ok, lets set aside the technical features... the smaller radar cross section, the better sensor integration, etc. The one thing that the F35 has that none of its current competitors have is the fact that it will be used by multiple countries and will likely be manufactured for decades to come. This means that, 30 years from now, it will be easier to get spare parts or replacements. And should some problem arise in the future, any cost of developing a fix can be spread among multiple countries. Compare that to (for example) the F18 Super Hornet, where it may only be flown by 2 or 3 countries, and for which production will end likely by the end of the decade. If we buy a fleet of F18s, we may find ourselves as the lone operator mid-way through the plane's life span. Similar problems exist with the other possible alternatives... like the Gripen or Typhoon. Both planes are currently being produced, but they've been around for 15 or 20 years, and have a much smaller number of planes. There is no guarantee that they will continue manufacturing them for more than a decade. Overall, this will likely make the lifetime cost of the F35 less than that of the alternatives. Keep in mind that the 'unstable' costs were largely centered around the development process. When it comes time to purchase new jets, and if we select the F35, we can select terms of the contract that give stability. (If we sign a contract for $X per jet, that's what we'll be paying, regardless of how much that price had changed before we actually made the purchase.)

We can always buy the F18 super hornet, if we don't mind the wings falling off. Planes don't need wings, do they? https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20070517&id=n68jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6957,733944&hl=en

The bombing of ISIS has cost (up to February of this year) ~$122million (non-fixed costs). Estimates are that by next year, the costs may be ~$500 million, far from the "billion or more" you were suggesting. Also, Canada has recently ended its combat mission in Afghanistan, so that partly offsets the cost of the bombings. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-war-against-isis-has-cost-122-million-not-including-salaries-and-other-fixed-costs-government-says It is true that they have cut taxes. But, various spending programs that the conservatives began in response to the 2008 recession have started to wind down, which offsets the cuts in taxes. And the economy, while sluggish, has still expanded over the past year. (Slower than we might have liked, and with contractions part of that time, but still an overall growth.) So yeah, its quite likely that the deficit is gone.

At the risk of derailing this thread even more... Running a message board is probably a thankless task (especially if the moderator wants to keep a high signal-to-noise ration on the forum.) And I doubt its a big money-maker for him (if indeed he makes any money at all.) This forum exists because of his efforts. Since 'Herr' is a german term often associated with Nazi germany, you are implying that the moderator is some sort of right wing dictator. I don't think that's a fair assessment. All sorts of left-wing posts exist on this site (and in this thread). The earlier picture of the flinstones was deleted, but he didn't touch the content of the post. I know I occasionally cross the line with regards to the moderation, but I respect the job he does. Why exactly was it relevant? This thread was discussing the Canadian green party and its policies. It was not discussing international politics or views on science. Perhaps if you had a graphic comparing the percentage of conservative vs. green party members that were creationists it might actually be relevant, but even then, nobody is defending conservative MPs over their beliefs in creationism. The point that I have been making is that there are more types of scientific nonsense than just belief in creationism. Many Green Party policies have tied into that nonsense. Being on the right side of one issue doesn't necessarily mean they are on the right side of all scientific issues.

And every statement I made was a direct reference to a green party policy. Hey, I had no problem with the Flinstone's picture. But ReeferMadness seemed to think my post mocking, belittling and discrediting green party policies somehow discredited me. So, if he thinks mocking and belittling idiotic Green party policies discredits me, he must also think a posting mocking Stockwell Day's belief (something I also think is idiotic) discredits you. Or he's a hypocrite. Given the fact that pretty much everyone here agrees creationism is stupid, posting the picture was a pretty useless gesture.

What, you don't like seeing Green party anti-science policies displayed in such a blatant manner? Sorry, I wasn't the one who made them adopt those policies. Perhaps if they were a little less anti-science there wouldn't be an issue. I find it ironic that you would suggest this post "eliminates my credibility", considering G Huxley posted a picture from the flinstones... does that type of posting eliminate his credibility too? Or are you a raging hypocrite? Everything I posted about the greens and their policies... each and every point I have made is based on a policy the Green party has had. Every one. And in each case, I have given reasons and multiple sources to support my point that their stance is illogical. The fact that you have swallowed such nonsense must mean that you and the rest of the greens are meant for each other... gullible people unable to apply basic skepticism.

Greens: Lets let people get cured by using magic water that no testing has ever shown works! And while we're at it, we'll do what we can to let every type of scam artist push fake medical cures on people! Greens: Lets push a form of farming which causes more environmental damage, while still pretending to be the "party of the environment" Greens: Lets ban fluoridation of water, even though major health agencies recommend it! Greens: Lets ban nuclear power, even though it can help us reduce our carbon footprint, and has a lower death toll than solar/wind, because we're scared by the word "nuclear"! Greens: Lets try to restrict the use of GMO foods, even though it could help the environment, because.... ooo scary genes! Hmmm... looks like the greens failed at science 5 times (at least). More than the conservatives. (You can count, can't you?) Oh, and by the way... there's one other major difference: The belief in evolution that many conservative MPs have is idiotic, but it is just that... a misguided personal belief. On the other hand, issues like organic farming, opposition to nuclear power, and alternative medicine are actually part of the actual party policy. In other words, its not just some idiot MP saying stupid stuff, its the whole party saying "Lets all agree on the same stupid stuff".

My suggestion to the GMO Labellers was that we do label. But on the organic and/or non-GMO food, the label we stick on says "This food is more likely to make you sick/wasted more land than needed/left small furry creatures homeless". Strangely none of them seem to think it was a good idea.

Yes indeed, Stockwell Day did have screwed up beliefs in creationism. Heck, I'll even go further and point out that the conservatives had (at least for a while) a science minister who's understanding of Evolution was... questionable at best. And yes, their record on global warming has been poor. All guilty as charged. But there are a few differences between the greens and the conservatives: - Nobody claimed the conservatives were the 'party of science'. (I suspect most people voting for them do so because they think, rightly or wrongly, that they have the best economic policies.) Many have tried to suggest that the greens were the party of science. They are wrong - There are 2 or 3 areas where the conservatives fair badly with respect to science. There are 5 or 6 where the Green party does I would much rather vote for a party that has 2-3 areas of science where its wrong, and economic/foreign policies I agree with, than a party with 5-6 areas of science where its wrong and economic/foreign policies I disagree with

First of all, you seem to be ignoring the fact that many GMOs have been modified for things other than pesticide resistance. For example: - One common modification is for bt resistance, which protects plants from insects (rather than widespread pesticide spraying, giving us things like agricultural run-off). - The Papaya has been genetically modified to prevent infection by the ringspot virus (a disease that has no known organic controls.) - Golden Rice has been modified to provide additional vitamin A. I guess the greens don't care if people in the 3rd world suffer from blindness. (Either that, or they want to spend millions to fly vitamins to the developing world, in planes spewing greenhouse gasses.) Secondly, I do have to echo TimG's comments when he said "so?" So what... Monsanto has been successful. The produce products people want. However, other seed companies (including ones selling organic seeds) still exist. If farmers didn't think increased yields warranted the expense of GM seeds, there are plenty of alternatives where they can buy alternative (even organic) seeds. Monsanto will then be forced to either come out with even better products, or go out of business.

I've pointed to multiple areas where the party has been anti-science... a rejection of nuclear power (even though it has caused fewer deaths per KWh generated than "clean" solar/wind)... acceptance of alternative medicine (even though evidence shows it doesn't work)... support for organic farming (even though evidence shows that it may actually be more dangerous). As for GMOs, they have outright stated they will ban some experimentation, and the 'pro-labelling' is just a way to make its use impractical and ban it that way. If you like eating vegetables doused in carcinogens, you must really love organic foods... From: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens Oh, but don't worry... because natural pesticides are less effective, you get to use more of them... From: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan. Yummm... more than twice the organic pesticide. Of course, while you are sitting there patting yourself on the back for sticking to Organic foods, just remember, you're more likely to catch e.coli poisoning long before you get cancer. (Organic foods are more responsible for food poisoning than non-organic.) http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019?popular=true We label ingredients in food because there is a biological difference between the different components. Someone with severe food allergies (for example) will need to know to avoid negative reactions. However, GMO foods (those that have been tested and are in use) have the same biological effects as non-GMO foods. There is no difference in nutrition, nor in their effect on the body. Nobody is made 'safer' by knowing whether the corn used in their food was a GMO or not. It would be as if the government passed a law mandating that all dairy products must provide the breed of cow used. It does not matter whether your milk came from a holstein or jersey, so mandating such labeling would be useless red tape and would drive up the costs.

Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully. I point out a problem with a party and its supporters supporting non-scientific claptrap, and you jump in feet first and illustrate my point beautifully. You are probably more at risk from eating a banana (some potassium is radioactive), sleeping next to someone, or living in a concrete building than you are in being affected by some random cesium particle from a Japanese reactor. Actually yes they are. The fact that you think they are correct does not make them so. Thank you once again for illustrating my point... that supporters of the green party are less interested in science and more interested in hysteria. From: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/28/women-organic-foods-develop-cancer Women who always or mostly eat organic foods are no less likely to develop cancer than women who eat a more conventional diet...They found no difference in overall cancer risk when comparing the 180,000 women who reported never eating organic ally grown food with around 45,000 women who said they usually or always eat organic food. (Now, they did find variations in the rates for some individual cancer types, but that is likely due to smaller sample sizes.) I have no problem admitting that the Conservatives have been poor when it comes to science. That is not why I supported them in the past. And if I do happen to vote for them in the future, it will not likely be due to their policies on science. Of course, given a choice between the conservatives (poor in a couple of areas of science) and the Greens (poor in probably twice as many areas of science) I'd probably go with the conservatives.

I think this thread represents the whole problem with the Green party. One member (ReeferMadness) seems to support the greens. Others may not have explicitly stated they support the greens but seem to occupy the same spot on the political spectrum. Multiple problems have been pointed out regarding the greens and their attitudes towards science. (Anti-nuclear/pro-organic/alternative medicine/etc.) Instead of accepting that there are problems and pointing out that overall they support their party (even though they disagree with certain things in their platform) they double-down on the stupidity, trying to justify why their bad science should be accepted. It just verifies to some of us that the Green party and their supporters are a bunch of hippies and anti-science kooks. I have supported the conservatives in the past. But that does not mean that I supported each and every policy they had. I disagree with their stance on marijuana. I disagree with some of their environmental actions. But I supported the party because when I added up all the good policies and bad, overall they most closely matched my political beliefs. It would probably mean a lot more if, when we pointed out the silliness of the Green party stance towards nuclear power, or organic farming, some of their supporters said "yeah those aren't good policies... but their other policies make up for it". Instead, they try to justify bad policies. It seems counterproductive.

My mention of urine was meant to be a flippant remark. The point was, too many people jump no the band wagon and say "X is wrong", without understanding X. Just like people claim "artificial pesticides are bad" without understanding them. If you told people "your produce was doused in urine" they would probably avoid it. Why should I care about what your manager thinks? He sounds like he has no understanding of the science. And why worry about "massive amounts of pesticides" on non-organic farms? Organic farming uses pesticides too... The difference is because organic pesticides are less effective, more must be used. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron By the way, we still haven't heard why its relevant that your preference for working on an organic farm means that yields for organic farms match those of non-organic farms.

It depends on the particular RRSP... The current rate of return for the CPP fund is 6.2%/year (over the past 10 years). The TSX may be beating that, but not everyone has their RRSPs in the stock market. Some use bond funds (safer but lower rate of return) or T-bills. As someone else pointed out... not everyone saves for their retirement. And even those that do don't always invest wisely. So, we have an option of either: 1) Use the CPP program to enforce savings, 2) Having the non-savers supported on government assistance when they retire, or 3) letting the non-savers starve to death.

Solar farms have several advantages over rooftop solar: - Death per KWH is lower (probably because the centralized allows more control to prevent industrial accidents) - Rather than solar panels, they can use other technology that is still able to produce energy after the sun has gone down (e.g. molten salt... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229654-100-giant-solar-farm-uses-molten-salt-to-keep-power-coming/) - I suspect it may be easier to feed power into the grid... rather than a thousand circuits from rooftop systems to the grid, they just need a single one Whether solar shingles work will probably depend on how your house is oriented, the snow covering, etc.

In the past, money collected for the CPP was basically used by the government (similar to Canada Savings Bonds.) Payouts were made through money that was collected. Several years ago, the government changed the plan, and collected money was invested, much of it globally, to provide diversification and better growth. Investment decisions are done through a crown corporation. (I do have to give credit to the previous Liberal government for that.) It is true that some people will benefit more than others; some may even see no (or almost no) benefits. But, its the same with any insurance scheme. I have no problem with such a program, as long as deductions are kept relatively small.

I love that you parsed that list because it would have forced you to be extremely critical of oil and natural gas production. I parsed the list because in previous posts I was comparing the death rate for nuclear (the technology that the green party doesn't want to use) with wind/solar (technologies that the green party favors). In a thread that already has a substantial amount of drift, bringing up issues with fossil fuels would have been an additional distraction that wasn't needed. I have no problem criticizing fossil fuels. They contribute to localized air pollution. They contribute to the greenhouse effect. The remaining reserves will eventually run out. We do need to find alternatives, and soon. (And I have no problem criticizing the conservatives for having the weakest policies towards global warming.) Nuclear power would be a good alternative to fossil fuels (at least for electricity production). No carbon footprint. Technology (when handled properly) is relatively safe, remaining reserves of uranium will last a substantial amount of time (much longer than fossil fuels anyways). And the technology is mature. We could start building additional reactors tomorrow. But the green party doesn't want us to use it.

Hah don't be ridiculous. I've worked on a massive agricultural farm and organic. I'd never work on the former again. Why exactly is that relevant? How does the fact that you prefer working on an organic farm mean that organic farming gives the same yields as non-organic? Oh and just wondering... one of the "pesticides" used in organic farming is urine. So, was it your job to pee on people's food, or did you hire others to do that?