Noyhauser

Just to chime in... I think its really a question of what you want to use it for and how much you're willing to pay for it. My main use for this computer is for my writing and research, as well as making long, boring posts on Macrossworld. So it needs to work online fairly well, able to save and organize a large database of files, and be reliable. I also watch movies from time to time on it. For this sort of narrow range of functions (which I'd say refer to 50% of the market at least) Apples are probably the best you can find. Everything you heard about the Panther/Tiger/Leopard's ease of use is probably true; its just that simple. After buying my first in early 2004, I was astounded by its ergonomics. It makes you wonder why Windows makes it so hard. The obvious problem is that there is a significant cost premium involved; possibly as much as $1000 dollars for a comparable PC. The other problem with Apples is that they are limited in their customizability; both in its hardware and software. Now you probably won't upgrade your apple components that much, because they are really not designed to be (beyond ram and the HD) but the OS's limitations can be a bother. If you start wanting to do stuff outside the core applications, then you start running into trouble. Many programmers don't like Apple for that reason. Then again many don't like microsoft either and will go with linux, because they can customize their computer As for Applecare, I've had both good and bad problems with it, although I'd go with mostly good. I also had a several serious problem with my G4 Powerbook due to dropping it once, and they completely replaced all of it: Screen burn problem (not affiliated with the drop), dead hard drive, burnt out ram bus (requiring the motherboard to be replaced), damaged DVD drive, and dents in the aluminum hull. At least that had to come to 1500+ and they didn't question it. I think its actually a better warranty than you will find with other major manufacturers, but then again I might be biased. So there you go... hope it helps.

Not that this is too surprising, but its getting buried under the Tanker news. Boeing could announce third delay for 787 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03f20d42-ec77-11...00779fd2ac.html Key point: Funny that almost a year ago, people were humming the funeral dirge for Airbus while touting the virtues of Boeing, and now we're seeing articles like This... not that it won't swing back the other way in the future, when lets say the investigation of Airbus execs stock selloff kick into high gear.

Anybody who chose Klingons need to give their head a shake... any species thats so inept that that they can let a planet explode can't get my vote.

Since we're all contributing articles, here's one from the Weekly Standard about how the French Sabotaged Dassault in its Rafale sales. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/pr...amp;R=139B1FA36

Hey David, what are future sales prospect for the A330? Is it correct to assume the movement of the A330 final assembly unit to Mobile could be a huge financial benefit for the region outside the tanker program?

Here's a shock: EADS wins the USAF Tanker Derby Rematch http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business...amp;oref=slogin

Its not so much a carrier than a Anti Submarine LHA (minus the Harriers and alot smaller), which is why they classified it a Destroyer. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html

There are some. Not to go too deeply into it, but expecting India to be a counterbalance to Pakistan actually in some way is the reason why we have the problems with Pakistan and Afghanistan today. In early 1990, after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and American funding dried up due to the Geneva accords, the ISI essentially had a free hand to do what they wanted to do in the country. It had two objectives. The first was to keep the integrity of Pakistan. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (of which Waziristan being one province) was a hotbed of Pashtun independence, partly because everybody had been funding Pashtun groups to fight the Soviets. By installing a religiously based group in afghanistan they would focus these religiously inspired militants towards fighting in Afghanistan, instead of fighting for independence against Pakistan. This had another advantage for Pakistan. It would create an important strategic depth for its forces. If you look at pakistan, its a thin country, with its major cities vulnerable to a major Indian thrust. By installing a Muslim ally behind it, the Pakistani military could pull back and use afghanistan as a base to wage a protracted conflict against an Indian invasion. Unfortunately, the Taliban became a real problem for Pakistan however, and were even considering disavowing them prior to 9/11. Second, India will never be a "stable" U.S. ally, like lets say the United Kingdom or Canada. Actually it won't be anywhere close even with decades of effort. On almost every single dealings in the region since 1950s we've sided with Pakistan. The Indians have long memories of this, and they are also the leader of the "non aligned movement." One of the most serious events happened in 1972 when Nixon sent the USS Enterprise during the West Pakistan war to coerce India to pull back in their attacks on what would become Bangladesh. Its one of the main reasons why they tested a nuclear bomb in 1974. Next, the Reagan in 1984 made a promise to Zia that if they renounced nuclear weapon development, the United States would extend its nuclear umbrella to it, as a defence against Indian aggression. That really raised some eyebrows. Yes, now, they are buying U.S. weapons for its own defence, but its not for an "alliance" with the United States. Actually quite a significant portion of the Indian political elite is against any dealings with the United States. The Indians have no scruples about buying weapons from anybody. This deal is no different how they bought weapons from the Russians during the Cold War, and didn't really support them either, but said some friendly words. Also, if Pakistan does get into a war with India, they'll completely stop suppressing militants in the FATA, well even less than what they are doing now. Most of the funding the West has given Pakistan since 2001 has been going to support their conventional military capabilities against India. Giving India more weapons only increases the pressure on Pakistan to defend against them instead of indigenous threats. Pakistan is a loose federation of a lot of different ethnic and religious groups with competing interests; its always on the razor's edge. Any pressure we put on it threatens to throw it out of completely out of balance. Anyway, thats just a simple overview of the political dynamics on the subcontinent. Its a pretty messy place overall.

First I never claimed it was a replacement, only a supplement. On top of that you're overstating your case about retargeting. A B-2 is already limited in its "retargeting" by what bombload it carries, which can be 6 to 12 hours old. An SL/ICBM can hit any part of the world in the space of 35 minutes or less depending on the base, pretty competitive when it comes down to the planning cycle. One of the biggest reasons for the use of ballistic missiles is its penetration capability. When operational a kinetic kill vehicle travelling at 4km a second will be the most effective hardened penetrator in the U.S.'s arsenal... far more effective than the GBU-28, the top air droppable weapon. Tomahawks are pretty poor penetrators, and are generally a poor substitute overall. They are not stealthy and quickly lose the element of surprise as they approach their targets subsonically. Moreover its not that much more cost effective. A first strike with eight reentry vehicles spread over 40 million dollars is five million per warhead. Each Tomahawk costs about a million each, and will likely have a higher failure rate. In anycase, this is a program that is already in its final stages and will likely be fielded in the next five years or so... so there is not much point arguing as to whether we should go ahead with it at this point or not, because its effectively already here.

What would we need a B-2 for really then? Right now the B-2 is completely underutilized as a platform. It was designed with one purpose in mind; as a first strike nuclear strike platform. In other roles it performs fairly poorly. While it might be able to carry the most payload of any bomber, Its got by far the highest operating cost of any the aircraft operated by USAF, and is basically a glorified hanger queen. That means its cheaper and more effective to send several F-15Es or a Bone, which is usually the case. In the initial combat operations in Iraq in 2003, the B-2 flew 50 sorties, B-1Bs 225 and B-52s 280. Since then, as far as I can tell, the B-2 hasn't flown another mission or done so sparingly, while B-1s and B-52s fly almost continuously. The same happened during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, where B-2s mostly operated at the start of the operation, with other aircraft conducting the bulk of the subsequent attacks. With the B-2 losing its technological edge and its numbers decreasing through accidents/unserviceability ect, an SLBM system can supplement the B-2 as a first strike platform, hitting targets the spirit might not able attack safely. It wouldn't require a new missile production as existing units could be retrofitted with these kinetic vehicles. You wouldn't use these weapons throughout the conflict, much like you probably wouldn't use B-2 in that role because its prohibitively expensive to do so. These weapons would be considered silver bullets, only to be used against the most high value targets other systems cannot strike safely. If available during Kosovo or in Iraq, you might have seen only one or two missiles fired at the very start of the operation, and thats it. 30 million a missile compared to approximately 1 billion dollars + lifecycle costs for a B-2 actually stacks up the capability fairly well. There are problems, particularly with risk of escalating nuclear tension, but given its low cost I'd say its actually a fairly inexpensive way to maintain a conventional first strike capability along side the B-2

Thats not the Tomahawk program, which really is an outgrowth of the failed Arsenal Ship programs from the 1990s. The Pentagon has invested into programs that would convert some Trident, Peacekeeper and Minuteman missiles into conventional attack weapons. It would use kinetic penetrator warheads to attack heavily defended high value targets as a first strike, much like a B-2 was designed to. The CRS brief I linked above has most of the details.

It kinda does; the hypersonic bomber program is viewed as a follow-on program, even though its not likely to see service until the late 2020 time frame (if then). There was also Pentagon talk about equipping SLBMs with conventional warheads, which would essentially cover many of the same mission roles as the B-2 serves today. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf

Cmon how can you not be excited for another completely impractical, poorly designed, variable vehicle? More space helicopters anyone? Just kidding.

Meh, I just get them from that certain someone on the boards without any conditioner on top.... Since I brush paint everything I don't use a sealing coat, so I want everything as thin as possible.

Yeah, I misread his original post because it said crazy model graphics kit and then I skipped to the part about getting the box set.

They aren't the same decal sets you know.

Mike's completely right. Also if you've watched the Zeta compilation movies, they present an alternate timeline which completely writes out ZZ with some comparatively minor edits and goes straight to CCA. You probably already knew that though... but I think it shows how easily it can be discarded from the time line.

No, it wouldn't. Maybe I'm a model purist, but I'd rather Bandai not have anything to do with Macross. I'm somewhat upset they get the first crack at macross frontier stuff. For years we got substandard crap from Bandai. When Macross 7 came out bandai made three so-so 1/144 models, and two terrible 1/100 VF-19. You want to see what a mess bandai can do, search for the 1/100 transformable model.... I wouldn't want that and neither would anybody else. Then compare what happened when Hasegawa acquired the license; we got some of the best models we could ever ask for. The VF-1 the VF-1 Strike Battroid, YF-19, YF-21, and the VF-0 Reactive Armor, were all brilliant models. Bandai for some reason refuses to do "normal" scales, and they aren't good models. When I build a HGUC or MG, I don't feel like I'm building a miniature version of a gundam. I feel I'm building a toy. A hasegawa 1/72 is brilliant for details... and when you're done you have something that looks like it could exist in the real world. Honestly? Give a Strike VF-1 Battroid a chance. It might be a bit more difficult than you're used to, but its well worth the effort. If you were interested in Moscato's Spartan, then this would be far far simpler, and look better than any model bandai can put out. If you want a transforming fighter, go buy a yamato. They are pretty good and might be more along the lines of what you want.

Take what you will from this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/movies/0...ster&st=nyt

Actually the best I've found for quick and easy panel lines are Sakura pens (bullet pens, and I think .5 mm as small as you can get) These are high end pens favoured by graphic artists. What I do is line them, and with a damp paper towel, wipe out the excess in the direction with the airflow. Now I don't know how well this will work with toys, since I use this for models which I don't often touch. http://www.sakuraofamerica.com/Pen-archival-ink

No, thats the standard launcher we see the ARDM series use in DYRL... which the Guantanamo class is the follow on to (and in service for over fifty years.)

Don't be sad. As a "model guy" I'm ticked off its not a Hasegawa. That battroid looks really piss poor compared to a Hase Vf-1... then again it might be a toy.

Umm Dream Pod 9 did the Jovian Chronicles saga, which featured some really nice designs (the best was the Valiant Class Strike Carrier). http://www.dp9.com/Worlds/jc_page4a.htm Maybe google around for some images

Haven't started.... but would you mind showing us some pictures of your modifications? I have some ideas for the knee joints, but the ankles make me wonder whether its at all worthwhile to do.

I was reading around because of this thread and it apparently the secret ingredient is glycol, which acts as an "drying retarder." Overall I've found that Tamiya likely near the top for airbrushing, but its too temperamental as a brush paint. You get one shot with it for brushing it on, because it doesn't go on well with a second coat.