segnosaur

A yes, a fine source of information... With references to: - Counterpunch (a source that is pretty much universally seen as left wing. What does it say when you jump all over any suggestion that we're gullibly following Lochheed Martin, but your references rely quite heavily on left-leaning sources?) - A RAND study that even the RAND organization has stated: RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraftp. (See: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html) So, not exactly a totally reliable source for information. As for the "can't run, can't turn" quote, the link provided goes to a dead page, so I have no idea where they got their information from. (But from the questionable information provided elsewhere in the document, I don't hold out a lot of hope.)

First of all, I probably believe that as much as I believe in the claims that you served in the military. Secondly, you still didn't answer the question... does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect the drag.

Ah yes.... whenever your little fantasy world is debunked, jump in and accuse the people who have debunked you of being "sheep". Do you honestly believe that drag will somehow be unaffected if you add external items to an airplane?

I believe you're talking about the F35s that were doing vertical landings and takeoffs. Given the fact that the alternatives often suggested as alternatives (F18, etc.) can't DO vertical takeoffs/landings, then its not really a valid comparison/criticism. Except of course that the F35 does not have a problem with its speed or maneuvarability. According to test pilots (and those who actually know something about air planes), its performance in a combat situation is on par or greater than that of current '4th generation' fighters. But then, why would you let facts get in the way of your arguments? No, they didn't. Even if hackers have managed to obtain information related to the F35 stealth capabilities, that does not necessarily mean that they would automaticlaly be able to counteract those abilities. And even if they did find a way to eliminate stealth, it would still take years or decades for whatever technologies they came up with to be made available. China has only produced a very small number of stealth aircraft (and from the references I posted earlier, some of their work is fairly poor.) They are much further behind technically than the western world. It will probably be decades before they are able to 1) produce a decent plane, 2) find export markets, and 3) sell enough to our potential adversaries to make it a significant risk. In that time, the U.S. and other F35 users will enjoy a decade or 2 of unopposed "stealthiness".

I don't really think any combat plane is a 'pure' fighter or a 'pure' bomber (or bomb truck, as you put it.) The F22 (and probably the Typhoon) are stronger in the roll of air to air combat, but both are certainly capable of attacking targets on the ground. On the other hand, the F35 has a larger weapons bay (allowing it to carry bigger bombs for air-to-ground operations compared to the F22), and I believe it has better electronics for handling ground offensives. But, it certainly can carry a wide array of missles. Canada does need a fighter for handling basic air patrols over its own territory (for handling situations like wayward civilian planes, or for handling occasional incursions by Russian planes). But, I doubt we will see any significant air-to-air combat over our territory. So, the abilities of the F35 should be adequate domestically. The other missions we do need our planes for (e.g. our engagements in Libya or Syria) do favor a plane that is stronger in the ground attack role, where the F35 is stronger.

Please explain. Errr... not really. You see, the problem is that many of the people who are judging the F35 are idiots who don't understand even the basics of aviation. The F35 is capable of flying missions using internal fuel and weapons stored in the internal weapons bay. Doing so will reduce drag (giving it a decent range, speed, and maneuverability.) Now, compare that to (for example) an F16 or F18... When people suggest that the F35 is slower/less maneuverable than those planes, they are often comparing the planes in an unloaded configuration... no weapons, no external communications pods, no external drop tanks, etc. The problem is, for the F16/F18 to be useful they will have to carry weapons, possibly external fuel tanks, communications pods, etc. All this increases drag, slowing the planes down. An F35 in a "mission ready" state (i.e. carrying missles/bombs, with enough fuel to reach its target) can often do so without putting anything external on the plane. This means it can be faster, more maneuverable, and have a longer range than an F16/F18 with weapons, targeting pods, and external drop tanks contributing to drag. See: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-1 Oh, and from that article: One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one “were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there.” Is this the same Chinese J31 that's had one prototype built, and isn't anywhere close to being in production? Is this the same Chinese J31 that, during a display, showed: "poor aerodynamic efficiency. The aircraft bleeds too much energy and the pilot had hard time keeping the nose up during turns and other maneuvers. He also had to engage afterburners far too often to maintain a proper energy utilization curve...An aircraft configured for a real mission and fitted with weapons would be even heavier and would have an even more dismal flight performance" http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-11-17/chinas-fc-31-fighter-disappoints-first-display Here's a quiestion... if you think stealth is useless, then why exactly are the makers of military jets actually taking action to reduce the radar cross section of their planes? Stealth may not be the only quality needed by a military plane, and the F35s stealth characteristics may not be perfect... however, they are better than planes like the F18. You mean other than the use of internal weapons bays and electronics, which can give improved range/maneuverability during actual missions (as compared to, lets say, the F18, which can only fly missions with weapons hanging off, increasing drag and reducing speed.) You mean other than the possibility of purchasing a plane that is more viable long term (and which will be built for decades to come) than buying something like the Super Hornet, which is likely ending produciton within the next few years, making spare parts harder (and more expensive) to come by? (Which might make the overall costs of the F35 cheaper than the F18.) You mean other than having an air frame in common with several NATO partrners as well as other military allies, allowing any future development costs to be split among many countries? You mean other than buying a plane which, due to it still being in the early production stage, has a greater chance at local industrial spinnoffs? You mean other than having perhaps the most sophisticated combination of sensors and communications currently available?

I live in an area served with a 'super mailbox'.... It is approximately 50 meters from my front door (and I'm probably one of the furthest from it.) I doubt any sane person would have to drive to pick up their mail. (At least in urban areas.) Heck, in those areas, community mailboxes might even REDUCE carbon emissions, since the superboxes have an area for parcels; if you live in a house with home delivery and you're not there when a parcel is delivered, you have to make a special trip to the post office; if you have a super mailbox it can be left in the special parcel lock-box. As for rural areas... keep in mind that mail delivery was already costing carbon emissions (since I assume they weren't delivering mail door-to-door on horseback.). That will offset at least some of the extra carbon emissions from people driving to the mailbox every day. Further offsets will result from the fact that some will not be picking their mail up everyday, or will combine trips (i.e. pick up mail at the same time they do their shopping, or on their way to work.)

While a recent immigrant may not have (yet) paid, many/most will get jobs and pay into it. Well, first of all, even if you don't get cancer, you will likely get some other disease that will require expensive treatments. Secondly, there is a difference between something that is lifesaving (i.e. medical care) and something that is more or less a convenience (i.e. direct to driveway pickup). Thirdly, any individual who DOES get cancer probably did not get it voluntarily. Yet in your case, it is your choice to live in the location you do. You are exercizing your right to live where you want, but the rest of us are under no obligation to subsidize that choice. Yes they are. And many things are not subsidized. If its somethign that will prevent a catastrophic occurance (e.g. keeping someone from dying or other grevious harm) then most of us don't mind seeing our tax dollars used to support, or subsidize others. Something that is merely a convenience, or for which reasonable alternatives exist (e.g. expecting you to pick up your mail while you're already out running errands, or asking the person who lives closest to you to pick up your mail) is something that does not require subsidies, and you shouldn't be suprised if the rest of us balk at paying for it.

Who said you had to drive "Every single day"? What about a couple of times a week? Or do it when you are going out to do your grocery shopping? Actually, I believe Canada post is not supposed to be "tax payer supported". Its supposed to cover costs of the service by selling stamps. Well, that depends on your definition of "fair". Is it fair that others have to subsidize your lifestyle choice (i.e. living in the country and getting drop off at your own mailbox) by increasing the cost of postage and/or taxes to cover the extra costs it requires? Wait a second... you have the money to not only afford a house with a 300m long driveway, but also to hire a service to plow it, but you don't have the money to pay some kid in the area to pick up your mail for you? Just the opposite... in this case, increased postal rates that would be needed to subsidize your direct mail delivery are not affecting "the few"... they are affecting many. Its you who is "the few" that expects the majority to follow your wishes.

They did raise the price of stamps, but the amount thay raised it would still not be enough to cover the cost of home of first class mail. Canada post only seems to turn a profit by selling off buildings, accounting tricks, and relying on parcel delivery (something which is different in many ways from regular first-class mail). I think the idea has some merit... make the default service to be a guaranteed delivery to a "super mailbox" (so everyone would get the same service). Anyone who wants more "specialized" service (e.g. direct to home rather than the super mailbox) can pay an extra fee. Just like if a person wants express-post, or a registered letter (both features that cost more than 'regular' mail).

your comments on Peter Milliken show you haven't any sense of who he is and how he was viewed as Speaker of the House by all parties... for a decade recognized as the epitome of neutrality, of fair minded review and standing by all parties... for significant rulings made and, yes, those significant rulings play directly into his quoted comment about Harper. Given your absolute failure in this regard, your other comments carry no weight/significance. imagine that... you had 2 barking seals step up and offer you "well said" platitude! Wow, just totally wow.... You really believe that, despite the fact that he ran under the Liberal banner, was a card carrying member of the Liberal party, and has continued to serve the Liberal party after his retirement as an MP, that somehow his analysis is magically unbiased? What color is the sky in your world? Just in case you still don't understand... neutrality in the position of the speaker does not mean that he will be neutral outside the house. Otherwise, his debates when he was running for election would have been interesting... "Vote for me. Just because. I don't have a reason. I have no opionion."

Yet the Chretien government was ALSO critized for invoking closure unnecessarily. They limited debate dozens of times during their time in power (despite the fact that Chretien had promised not to use that tactic before being elected.) Yet somehow our parlimentary democracy continued on. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=77&art=195 I guess those types of things are only bad if its the OTHER party that's doing it. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could. Laws that have been passed by parliment have been struck down by the supreme court before Harper was elected, and there will be laws struck down by the courts long after he's resigned.

Ummm... how does she mow the lawn? Shovel the drive way? Get rid of any woodchucks living on her lawn porch? Drag away the bodies of any Jehovahs witnesses from her porch? Or do any number of those little tasks that are necessary for living in a single family home? Is there any reason she can't ask the person mowing the lawn or getting rid of the Jehovas witnesses to pop down to the mailbox for her?

Is "zero" considered an amount? Seriously, how many times has it been pointed out to you that if an individual lives in a single family home that they already have the ability to maintain their house (either through their own effort, or through using other people). An elderly person who can get someone to cut their grass and shovel their walk can easily hire someone to pick up their mail. Or are you going to continually resort to appeals to emotion rather than logic? Facts say otherwise. For example, take unemployment (one of the key elements of the econdomy.) Between between 2000-2005 (a time period of over half a decade), the U.S. economy had an unemployment rate between 4% and 6%. In the same time period, the unemployment rate in Europe maxed out at over 8% for men, and even higher for women. And what about this decade? The U.S. started with an unemployment rate of 9.6% but that dropped to under 8% within 3 years. In europe? Started at around the same level, then went up to almost 11% http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates_by_gender,_EU,_seasonally_adjusted,_January_2000_-_August_2014.png So no, there are examples showing that "heavily unionized europe" was not doing better than the U.S., and in some measures was doing significantly worse.

I always find it amazing when people take what is in effect an opinion piece, and assume that it serves as some sort of evidence or smoking gun about how "evil" some politician or group is. So, is that typical of the evidence provided in Harris' work? Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain. The conservatives are not perfect... far from it. (Their habit of using omnibus bills is one I'm not happy with.). I'm quite willing to criticize them over things that they've actually done wrong or things I disagree with... but claiming Harper is making parliment "dysfunctional" is they type of "Harper Derangement Syndrome" that ads very little to political discussion.

Probably because money that gets paid into EI comes out of his pocket (and the pockets of employeed people across Canada.) Irrelevant. If the EI program is running surpluses, then in theory the government could reduce the contribution rates, leaving more money in the pockets of the consumer. Most people probably don't mind paying for things that are necessary/important. They don't like paying for things that are unfair/wasteful. There are several issues here... In most insurance systems, your premiums increase according to your risk. That doesn't happen with EI. People pay the same whether they've been working for the past 2 decades for the same company or for some new start-up that can go bankrupt tomorrow. Secondly, the government does "screw around" with the EI system... Chretien took millions out of the fund to reduce the deficit... But that's not what the fund was meant for. They also use the fund as a form of socal programs, using it for things like maternity leave, which is not what an insurance program is used for (i.e. handling unexpected catestrophic situations.)

In the case of lettermail, first class mail, Canada Post has no choice in maintaining the service no matter what. Is that the subsidy you mean? No, by subsidy I mean taking profits from a successful part of Canada Post's business (parcel delivery) and using it to cover losses in a less successful part of its business (first class mail). I recognize that because of its mandate, first class mail may (in the future) always lose money, regardless of what management does, and that part of its business may need to be propped up (from either profits from its parcel business, or from some other method). But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't take steps to minimize that loss. Eliminating home delivery is a way to minimize that loss.

Indeed. It's a laughable argument. Not sure why people keep repeating it. Probably because they realize they don't actually have the facts to back up their arguments, so they use the image of someone's elderly grandmother who's unable to get a letter from her grandson as a way to garner sympathy for their position. A blatant appeal to emotion rather than logic. (Granted, people in all parts of the political spectrum do it...)

The increase in first class postage and stopping household delivery are just the latest signals of their corporate direction, which they have not really deviated from in decades. They know that the profit from firs class mail is shrinking and unreliable. They don't really hurt themselves by jacking up first class stamp rates , that sector will be in continuing decline for the foreseeable future since it it unlikely that the Internet is just a fad. Those few people who still enjoy home delivery will soon get over being subsidized by those who don't. Their strategy has gone away form mail delivery for decades now, it has been focused on distribution. They already have a pretty efficient and pretty comprehensive distribution network with modern facilities for handling and distributing paper/parcels across Canada. And that is where they see their future and their survival, Their admail program will expand. What is really big for them is parcels, and specifically online shopping which is growing greatly. They are well positioned there, right now. Lettermail will be a necessary brdenm, and with the sharp increases in stamp prices should not be a loss leader. Hey, don't blame me... blame cybercoma, who keeps harping about how the incredibly genius idea of raising stamp prices somehow kept Canada post profitable. (Ignoring of course contributions from selling off assets, and the parcel delivery system.) I've already addressed the issue of Canada Post's parcel delivery system. Yes, they are successful at it, and it does turn a profit. I just think its a questionable business decision to keep a successful part of an organization from subsidizing an unsuccessful one.

This has already been addressed... Living in a single family home requires a significant amount of effort... cutting grass, shovelling the sidewalk, etc. (not to mention regular tasks such as getting food, etc.) If someone is living in a single family home, they either 1) have the mobility to do all those tasks themselves, or 2) have someone to do that work for them (whether it be someone they hired, a volunteer, or family member). Mail service could be handled in the same way. I find it incredible that there are people suggesting there are armies of senior citizens out there who can figure out how to to hire some kid to cut their grass or shovel their walk, but aren't quite smart enough to ask that same kid to pick their mail up when they're done.

I'm not sure of all the details regarding European countries, but I should point out a few things: - Europe does use super mailboxes. Not sure if there are any countries where ALL citizens use them, but they do exist. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_box#Europe) - Comparing Europe and North America may not give an accurate comparison, since Europe does have a much higher population density (probably leading to lower transportation costs) - As other people have said, many European countries have introduced privatization into their service. Others regularly run a deficit, or they have a parcel delivery service that subsidizes the regular mail. In britain, Royal Mail lost money for years. They are turning a profit now (but they are priviatized).

I guess you don't bother reading things that shatter your little world view, do you.... If Canada post didn't sell off buildings, they would likely have suffered another loss. And I find it amazing that you seem to be braging about how they "raised postage". Smart business sense... drive the cost up of a service that was already loosing business. Wonder how those little old ladies on a fixed income will like having to pay more just to send a birthday card to their grandson. The fact that they "raised postage" does not mean that the increased postage fees would have been enough to turn a loss into a profit by itself.

I already pointed out... While many of those who don't have door delivery live in large buildings, there are roughly 4 million Canadians who currently use super mailboxes.

You think they managed fine? I don't think you put much actual thought into things... Here's a question... I pointed out (With a reference!) that one of the reasons they are turing profits is because they are selling off some of their buildings. Just how long do you think they can continue turning a profit by selling off buildings?

Once again... 2 of the reasons they are in the black is because: - They are selling off some fo their buildings (as I pointed out in a previous post). This way to stay in the black is at best a short term measure - The parcel delivery business is subsidizing the first-class mail business.