WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

Because it was rigged! Because the US withheld crucial equipment, like the radar until after the deal was official! The Norwegian government claimed to, and I quote Anna-Grete Str?m Erichsen, "believe in free competition, the competition is real and fair in this case", after the deal was already sealed. It was an outright lie. As AP is still in government, they should apologize for wasting our time. I propose we stop selling you ribbe until they do. :yes:
Well go on then, I have already bought my ribbe... :p You can't threaten me...
 
LOLing at the current state of affairs with the US striking down wikileaks.org, and probably paying off those women to accuse the guy of rape, so Interpol now has a man hunt going on.
The power of information...


Oh and about JAS and F-35s... Get some EuroFighters you dongs, and help the european economy a little bit.
 
Last edited:
LOLing at the current state of affairs with the US striking down wikileaks.org, and probably paying off those women to accuse the guy of rape, so Interpol now has a man hunt going on.
The power of information...


Oh and about JAS and F-35s... Get some EuroFighters you dongs, and help the european economy a little bit.

or, screw your economy and get a better plane

All planes with vtol are awesome
 
or, screw your economy and get a better plane

All planes with vtol are awesome

And very un necessary. Ask the British how many planes they wasted in the Falklands not to Argentine missiles but to accidents regarding VTOL.
VTOL greatly reduces the weight the plane can carry since pointing an engine down to lift something is a very wasteful way of creating lift. Wings are much more efficient.
Wars are won on efficiency not awesomeness. I very much doubt any european country would get in a war soon where their air bases were destroyed to a point they'd need VTOL aircraft to operate in improvised short strips...
Also saying the F-35 is a better plane than the EF-T is ... very stupid.
 
Last edited:
Well actually F-35Bs are officially STVOL, but they can perform vertical takeoff under the right conditions. Not needing as much runway (400 feet as opposed to 3,000) = greater efficiency
 
Last edited:
Well actually F-35Bs are officially STVOL, but they can perform vertical takeoff under the right conditions. Not needing as much runway (400 feet as opposed to 3,000) = greater efficiency

No that's greater performance. Performance rarely equals efficiency. The amount of fuel spent with the engines to do most of the lift for the take off instead of the wings means you can't have too heavy of a plane. You lose range, you lose firepower, just to take off from short runways.
 
No that's greater performance. Performance rarely equals efficiency. The amount of fuel spent with the engines to do most of the lift for the take off instead of the wings means you can't have too heavy of a plane. You lose range, you lose firepower, just to take off from short runways.

Thats why they're STVOL rather than VTOL. The F35B's "total vertical lifting thrust is about 39,700 pounds (the aircraft weighs about 30,000 pounds)- more than 14,000 pounds greater than the engine alone would produce without the lift fan." so it doesn't sacrifice as much in terms of fuel consumption and payload.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35b.htm
 
Thats why they're STVOL rather than VTOL. The F35B's "total vertical lifting thrust is about 39,700 pounds (the aircraft weighs about 30,000 pounds)- more than 14,000 pounds greater than the engine alone would produce without the lift fan." so it doesn't sacrifice as much in terms of fuel consumption and payload.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35b.htm

There are no airplanes that are VTOL only. Any plane that can take off vertically can also do it in a rolling take off. Otherwise they're classified as helicopters. Here's the F35 performing a strictly vertical landing. So yes, it's a VTOL.
Anyway.
Trust me. Learn from the Harrier. When there was no need for a short take off they would do the long, normal take off. Guess why.

Anyway that's about enough of me trying to convince Captain America over here. Tired of his posts, go back to topic.
 
Last edited:
A new plane that tries to be a fighter, a bomber, a close air support, a chopper... Jack of all trades master of none.

Must be why the Marines (The military's jacks of all trades) ordered several hundred of them. Back to topic it is then.
 
Must be why the Marines (The military's jacks of all trades) ordered several hundred of them. Back to topic it is then.

The US military would never order airplanes from Europe, and back to the topic, Norway on the other hand, should.
Anyway the Typhoon already blew the 22 out of the skies in military mock dogfights and exercises, bring on the 35 and let's watch it "mockingly" blow.
 
PayPal announces it will no longer handle Wikileaks transactions

No job if you link to Wikileaks, warns Columbia

The second link is a bit disconcerting for some- the link only speaks of people looking for positions in the government/a government agency, but it could spread further. Could a company discriminate against you/take discplinary action against your for supporting Wikileaks/any other sort of organisation, and if so, would you be protected under anti-discrimination laws? (I'm inclined to think yes, but anti-discrimination laws are mainly reactive in my experience- many stores around here still get away with discrimination based on appearance when hiring, especially by requestion photo resumes).

Another question for everybody here- do you support the idea of Wikileaks leaking any sort of documents/data on private companies (including companies listed on the stock exchange)? Personally, I don't- I think there is enough transparency for private companies through things like annual reports, financial statements, etc.
 
No job if you link to Wikileaks, warns Columbia

The second link is a bit disconcerting for some- the link only speaks of people looking for positions in the government/a government agency, but it could spread further. Could a company discriminate against you/take discplinary action against your for supporting Wikileaks/any other sort of organisation, and if so, would you be protected under anti-discrimination laws?

I think this i scaremongering. Especially if you are a student at SIPA, ignoring WikiLeaks shows nothing but that you are not good at your job. No government agency in it's right mind will not employ a candidate who is highly qualified and political reliable otherwise just because he tweeted the "Caucasus Wedding" cable.
 
PayPal announces it will no longer handle Wikileaks transactions

No job if you link to Wikileaks, warns Columbia

The second link is a bit disconcerting for some- the link only speaks of people looking for positions in the government/a government agency, but it could spread further. Could a company discriminate against you/take discplinary action against your for supporting Wikileaks/any other sort of organisation, and if so, would you be protected under anti-discrimination laws? (I'm inclined to think yes, but anti-discrimination laws are mainly reactive in my experience- many stores around here still get away with discrimination based on appearance when hiring, especially by requestion photo resumes).

Another question for everybody here- do you support the idea of Wikileaks leaking any sort of documents/data on private companies (including companies listed on the stock exchange)? Personally, I don't- I think there is enough transparency for private companies through things like annual reports, financial statements, etc.

Well these documents are partly classified, so federal employees contributing or spreading them would violate their contracts. I guess it makes sense as well not to hire someone who has in the past contributed to wikileaks.

Leaking information on companies can be problematic, as that information is property of a company and using that can make one prone to civil liabilities. This probably does include the press. I would be interested to see what wikileaks has to offer on BoA, but it might also cause havoc in these very unstable financial markets. If a major banks goes under because of this, might end up at square one 9/15/2008.
I disagree with you that there is enough information available right now on public companies, even with investor conference calls and quarterly reports, one cannot see detailed positions of any given company.
 
Top