News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by LoveYouSaber

Problem is their current king Bhumibol Adulyadej is quite old and has health problems. I know the Thais respect the king very much, but I don't know if it's the person rather the whole system of monarchy that they respect - What happens when the current king is no longer there?

His son takes over. But that kid is abit of a wild one - his father probably sent him to school with the US Special Forces to keep him in line.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Depends on which government. City and county governements are generally broke relative to the Federal government and some State governments. Other state governments are also broke.

Yea, it does depend.

In Canada, the counties have their own department to investigate claims against them and make the decision to compensate if needed, without necessarily going through the court.

I think the same holds true for some US counties, but not for Habersham, that's currently short on budget for their schools.

[SaintessHeart]

China's Fifth-Generation Fighter Could Be A Game Changer In An Increasingly Tense East Asia

China is in the process of developing its own native fifth-generation fighter to compete with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and Russia's T-50.

Although China has been secretive about the exact specifications of the aircraft, experts are warning that the plane could be a game-changer in East Asia's potentially fragile security environment.

China's Chengdu J-20 is currently in its fourth round of prototypes. On July 26, the most recent version of the fighter flew for two hours before successfully landing.

Information about the J-20 is limited, but an unnamed Asian government source told IHS Jane's that upwards of 20 J-20s could be deployed by within the decade.

The J-20 has evolved rapidly from its first documented prototype in 2011. Each successive prototype has shown a number of design advancements that help the plane evade enemy radar detection. These changes include modifying the plane's wing size and adjusting the air intakes to maximize stealth.

It's likely that China is also outfitting the J-20 with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the plane's nose.

AESAs are incredibly powerful radar systems broadcast at a range of frequencies, allowing a plane to remain stealthy in the process. And the use of the AESA in the J-20's nose marks a striking similarity to the design of the U.S.'s F-35 fifth-generation fighter.

The similarities between the F-35, the F-22, and the J-20 are likely not a coincidence.

Aviation expert Carlo Kopp notes that China imitates the basic shapes and skeletal designs of existing aircraft to speed development while minimizing the risk of a costly and embarrassing engineering failure later on.

"By cleverly exploiting contemporary United States-developed stealth fighter shaping design rules," Kopp writes for the independent Australian think tank Air Power Australia, "Chengdu engineers were able to rapidly get an excellent basic shaping design with a minimum of risk and cost, and significant long-term stealth performance growth potential."

This potential, if China capitalizes on it, could allow the J-20 to achieve levels of stealth on par with, or even exceeding, the F-35.

This stealth capability could put all of East Asia at risk — the integrated air defense systems in the region rely primarily on types of radar that would be incapable of adequately detecting the J-20.

China would have undisputed first-strike superiority throughout a region where tensions are on the rise. Exact details of the aircraft's

fuel capacity and range are unknown, but estimates give the J-20 a striking range of 1,000 nautical miles, which would place Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Philippines airfields within reach of China.

And China has simmering economic and territorial disputes with each of these countries.

China's J-20 has likely also benefited from Chinese espionage.

A Chinese entrepreneur was arrested in July after stealing gigabytes of data related to the F-35 and the F-22, along with other U.S. military aviation projects. Previous extensive theft of F-35 data is believed to be the driver of a number of redesigns to the J-20 and the cause of the aircraft's improvements within each prototype stage.

However, China is still believed to be a long way from developing a native engine system for the plane.

Engines are "the long pole in the tent," Reuben F. Johnson, a Russian and Chinese military aerospace analysts who writes for Jane's, told The Diplomat. Until China develops its own engines, it is limited to using Russian imports.

Ultimately, the overall quality of a plane is just one factor in the aircraft's effectiveness, David Cenciotti, a military aviation expert and founder of The Aviationist, told Business Insider via email.

"We don't know much about the [J-20], but it is safe to say it's not always a matter of technology, armament or on-board equipment," Cenciotti wrote. "T heoretically, the J-20 will be able to match Western fifth-gen fighters in a one vs one confrontation, but a realistic engagement with airborne early warning and emissions control procedures would be something much different[.]"

And, as Cenciotti warns, training and logistics may be the most important factor. And if China can get that right, they'll have a fighter plane that can overcome their rivals' existing air defenses, and even match the over trillion-dollar F-35.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by LoveYouSaber

Problem is their current king Bhumibol Adulyadej is quite old and has health problems. I know the Thais respect the king very much, but I don't know if it's the person rather the whole system of monarchy that they respect - What happens when the current king is no longer there?

Thailand had many kings in the past, I am sure there would be no issues as long as there are heirs. And as others point out, it is the Monarchy system and not the king personally that the population respects.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Considering how often US government overspent their money, I am not so sure about this last statement.

(ok, that's sort of a separate topic)

The "US government" is not a monolithic entity. There are clear distinctions and restrictions between various levels of government. The federal government have little restriction on funding due to the Federal Reserve, the same is not true for local governments, some of which are mandated by law to keep a balanced budget for example. If local governments have the same resource as their federal counterpart, Detroit wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy, this is especially true for county/city level governments.

That's really beside the point though. As I've said, ultimately no one, whether it's a government institution/agency or a private citizen, are obligated by law to screw themselves over, regardless of their guilt. There's a reason why the 5th Amendment exists. What some people were asking for amounts to the county forking over money and admit guilt so they can fork over more money later (nevermind that it's actually not their money so much as the taxpayer's money). This is why you either reach an agreement that both side can agree on via a settlement, or have the case be decided through the court.

You can't expect one side to simply lay down and provide the other side with the stick to beat it with.

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Yea, it does depend.

In Canada, the counties have their own department to investigate claims against them and make the decision to compensate if needed, without necessarily going through the court.

That's what settlements are, a legally binding contract between the parties involved. Can the people whom the Canadian counties compensated sue them again for the same thing? I'm fairly certain the terms of the compensation comes with the stipulation that it absolves the county from further legal claims.


What this family and other posters are asking for is pure compensation (and an admission of guilt before the trial) that leaves open the opportunity to double dip again, it's simply not going to happen.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's what settlements are, a legally binding contract between the parties involved. Can the people whom the Canadian counties compensated sue them again for the same thing? I'm fairly certain the terms of the compensation comes with the stipulation that it absolves the county from further legal claims.

I am pretty certain that's the case too. But the point is that there are different approaches to this. In Canada, they have a more proactive approach where they have their own department to do the investigation themselves without the court. The county's website specifically instructs you on what to do to make a claim against them. But for Habersham, I can't really find anything similar. It's like filing a lawsuit is the only way there to claim damage against the county. If the population is not "sue-happy", then I believe the proactive approach is more efficient.

What this family and other posters are asking for is pure compensation (and an admission of guilt before the trial) that leaves open the opportunity to double dip again, it's simply not going to happen.

I am well aware the entire time that the county is acting "rational" given what they know, not intentionally acting as a jerk. But I will make an additional comment on this. After the crash in San Francisco airport, Asiana Airline did decide to pay for the victim's medical costs without strings attached. But of course, i would rather assume it being a calculated PR move more than them being a bleeding heart. In fact, it only makes sense for me to bring this up if it IS a calculated PR move. And certainly, being a commercial airline, PR matters more when compared to a "mere" county official. Dick Cheney even ordered his own White house medical team to look after the bystander he shot on accident during hunting. Mostly for "private" reason, but nevertheless, he covered the medical expense without it being a stipulation for not suing. (But of course, we don't expect the average joe to dare messing with Cheney anyway.)

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

I am pretty certain that's the case too. But the point is that there are different approaches to this. In Canada, they have a more proactive approach where they have their own department to do the investigation themselves without the court. The county's website specifically instructs you on what to do to make a claim against them. But for Habersham, I can't really find anything similar. It's like filing a lawsuit is the only way there to claim damage against the county. If the population is not "sue-happy", then I believe the proactive approach is more efficient.

It really depends on the nature of the claim and the dollar amount IMO. For example, last week an epic rainstorm of historic proportion swept through my area (southeast Michigan), there are municipalities that have claims forms for people who may have damages from sewage backups to ask for compensation (of course, whether they get it is another question, as often times the damage weren’t from backups alone). For things like this where it involves serious injuries is something else.

Also important to note is that this isn’t something solely for the county to decide – they can be as proactive as one can be, but I highly doubt anyone in the family’s place would settle for just the medical cost and whatever the county may offer on its own, when they are very likely to get a multi-million dollar settlement with a lawsuit. They know they’re going to get paid, the natural course of action is for them to try to get as much as possible. To do otherwise would be akin to a sports superstar going on free agency taking the first lowball offer they get.

I am well aware the entire time that the county is acting "rational" given what they know, not intentionally acting as a jerk. But I will make an additional comment on this. After the crash in San Francisco airport, Asiana Airline did decide to pay for the victim's medical costs without it being a stipulation for not suing them. But of course, i would rather assume it being a calculated PR move instead of them being a bleeding heart. In fact, it only makes sense for me to bring this up if it IS a calculated PR move. And certainly, being a commercial airline, PR matters more when compared to a "mere" county official. Dick Cheney even ordered his own White house medical team to look after the bystander he shot on accident during hunting. Mostly for "private" reason, but nevertheless, he covered the medical expense without it being a stipulation for not suing. (But of course, we don't expect the average joe to dare messing with Cheney anyway.)

As you said, there’s a big difference between a large corporation and rich politician and some run-of-the-mill county officials. To the former, the “compensations” are for pure PR management/brand repair. The amount paid out by Asiana are mere pittances in the grand scheme of things, and not at all aimed at heading off the inevitable wall of lawsuits and even more damage to their brand image. It simply a cost/benefit decision.

My point in all of this tbh is just to point out that the county’s decision is both rational and reasonable given their obligations and the situation.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It really depends on the nature of the claim and the dollar amount IMO.

Also important to note is that this isn’t something solely for the county to decide – they can be as proactive as one can be, but I highly doubt anyone in the family’s place would settle for just the medical cost and whatever the county may offer on its own, when they are very likely to get a multi-million dollar settlement with a lawsuit. They know they’re going to get paid, the natural course of action is for them to try to get as much as possible. To do otherwise would be akin to a sports superstar going on free agency taking the first lowball offer they get.

Yea, these are all true. But for domestic policy, it has to apply to every citizen equally(within the governed area). So the county has to choose one method and stick to it. And even if the county offer is rejected, the county would not look as bad given the proactive approach. Because they can simply say the family rejected the offer, at least they tried. But here in Habersham, the excuse would seem pretty vague and unconvincing to the general public.

[maplehurry]

In other news:

Russia seizes Japan research whaling ship in Sea of Okhotsk

Is this Putin giving Abe the middle finger for criticizing his move on Crimea?

/conspiracy

[konart]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

China's Fifth-Generation Fighter Could Be A Game Changer In An Increasingly Tense East Asia

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-cites...-politics.html

Pentagon cites 'dangerous' Chinese jet intercept

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon on Friday accused a Chinese fighter jet of conducting a "dangerous intercept" of a U.S. Navy aircraft off the coast of China in international airspace.

The Pentagon press secretary, Rear Adm. John Kirby, said Washington protested to the Chinese military through diplomatic channels, calling the fighter pilot's actions "unsafe and unprofessional."

Kirby said it happened Aug. 19.

He said the maneuvering by the Chinese jet posed a risk to the safety of the U.S. air crew, was "inconsistent with customary international law," and complicates efforts to improve military-to-military relations, which are often strained.

Kirby said the Chinese jet made several close passes by the Navy P-8 Poseidon plane, coming within 30 feet of it at one point. He said the Chinese jet did a "barrel roll" maneuver over the top of the Poseidon at one point and also passed across the nose of the Navy plane, exposing the belly of the fighter in a way apparently designed to show that it was armed.

Kirby said it happened about 135 miles east of China's Hainan Island. In 2001 a Chinese jet collided with a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off Hainan Island, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the Navy plane to make an emergency landing on the island.

The Navy's P-8 Poseidon aircraft are designed for long-range missions including intelligence collection and reconnaissance.

Those guys

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

In other news:

Russia seizes Japan research whaling ship in Sea of Okhotsk

Is this Putin giving Abe the middle finger for criticizing his move on Crimea?

/conspiracy

Actually no:

Russian authorities say the patrol ship failed to notify them of a change in its planned route. The research was originally set to take place in Russia’s exclusive economic zone but the ship intruded into Russian territorial waters, the sources said.

It intruded into Russian waters. Although I'm not sure what the protocol for these incidents are usually

[hawkeyesvn]

Originally Posted by konart

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-cites...-politics.html

Pentagon cites 'dangerous' Chinese jet intercept



Those guys

" When in doubt, do a barrel roll.". Or maybe those guys played ace online too much .

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by hawkeyesvn

" When in doubt, do a barrel roll.". Or maybe those guys played ace online too much .

Just deploy ECMs and jam the comms and radar of the jet. The P8 should have its own ECM systems, or at the bare minimum, some transmissions disruptor.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Actually no:


It intruded into Russian waters. Although I'm not sure what the protocol for these incidents are usually

The Japanese skipper also rejected the accusation. So it's still a "he said/she said" situation.

[GuZidi]

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ns-with-china/

The Navy is sending a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Asia Pacific region amid new tensions with China over a dangerous aerial encounter between a Chinese interceptor and Navy P-8 surveillance craft.

The strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson departed San Diego for the Pacific on Friday, the Navy said in an announcement of what it terms a “planned” deployment.

China’s military on Saturday, meanwhile, demanded an end to all U.S. monitoring flights and called U.S. criticism of dangerous Chinese jet maneuvers false.

Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said in a statement that a Chinese fighter jet made a “regular identification and verification” of the Navy P-8 anti-submarine warfare jet during an encounter in an area 135 miles east of Hainan Island.

Yang called Pentagon criticism of the incident “totally groundless” and insisted the Chinese pilot operated professionally and kept a safe distance.

The Chinese spokesman’s account, published in the state-run Xinhua news agency, is at odds with Pentagon officials who called the encounter both dangerous and aggressive. A White House official also said the dangerous intercept was a Chinese “provocation.”

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby on Friday called the maneuvers by the Chinese J-11—a Russian design Su-27—a dangerous and unprofessional encounter and said the military has protested the incident to the Chinese military.

“We have registered our strong concerns to the Chinese about the unsafe and unprofessional intercept, which posed a risk to the safety and the well-being of the air crew and was inconsistent with customary international law,” Kirby said, adding that the pilot of the J-11 was “very, very close; very dangerous.”

Asked Saturday about Yang’s assertion, Kirby told the Free Beacon: “We stand by our account of this dangerous and unprofessional incident.”

The Carl Vinson strike group will patrol “both 5th and 7th Fleet areas of responsibility,” the Navy statement said The 7th fleet covers the Pacific and the 5th Fleet is responsible for operations in the Middle East.

The guided missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill and three guided missile destroyers, the USS Gridley, USS Sterett, and USS Dewey also deployed with the Vinson.

The Vinson will join the Japan-based USS George Washington strike group.

Earlier, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeff Pool said in a statement that the aerial incident took place 135 miles east of Hainan Island when the J-11 came within 20 feet of a U.S. Navy P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

“The intercept was aggressive and demonstrated a lack of due regard for the safety and well-being of the U.S. and Chinese aircrews and aircraft,” Pool said, adding that the incident was of the most dangerous aerial encounters with the Chinese since the April 2001 EP-3 mid-air collision with a Chinese J-8.

The P-8 was on a routine mission in international airspace when the Chinese jet sought to intimidate the crew with several dangerous maneuvers, including a barrel roll over the top of the militarized Boeing 737 jet.

“On three different occasions, the Chinese J-11 crossed directly under the U.S. aircraft with one pass having only 50 to 100 feet separation between the two aircraft,” Pool said. “The Chinese jet also passed the nose of the P-8 at 90 degrees with its belly toward the P-8 to show its weapons loadout.”

“In doing so, the pilot was unable to see the P-8, further increasing the potential for a collision,” Pool said. “The Chinese pilot then flew directly under and alongside the P-8 bringing their wingtips within 20 feet and then before he stabilized his fighter he conducted a roll over the P-8 passing within 45 feet.”

The latest incident followed earlier intercepts that the Pentagon said were “nonstandard, unprofessional and unsafe intercepts of U.S. aircraft.”

Additionally, the aggressive interceptor was based at the same unit on Hainan Island that conducted similar aggressive intercepts in March, April, and May.

“We are concerned that the intercepting crews from that unit are acting aggressively and demonstrating a lack of regard for the regard for the safety of our aircrews,” Pool said. “We have raised our concerns over this unsafe behavior to the PRC.”

Deputy White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters the Chinese aerial encounter was “a deeply concerning provocation.”

Both the Pentagon and White House comments were unusually harsh for the Obama administration, which has sought to play down dangerous and threatening military developments by the Chinese.

Yang stated that “massive and frequent close-in surveillance of China” endangers air and maritime security and is at the root of accidents.

China is urging the United States to abide by international law and international practices and to respect the concerns of coastal countries, Yang said, adding that Washington should properly deal with the differences between the two nations on air and maritime security issues.

Yang said the United States should abide by the principle of “non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, take concrete actions, reduce and finally stop close-in surveillance of China, so as to create a sound atmosphere for bilateral military ties.”

Pool, the Pentagon spokesman, said in his statement Friday that U.S. monitoring is legal.

“Under international law, as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, military activities may be conducted within the Exclusive Economic Zone of another nation as an exercise of the freedoms of navigation and overflight,” he said. “Coastal states, including China, shall have due regard for the rights and duties of other States, including in the exercise of these freedoms.”

The aerial encounter comes amid a toughening posture by China in the South China Sea.

U.S. officials said Chinese official statements related to the ASEAN Regional Forum in early August revealed that China had no plans to back off aggressive claims in the South China Sea and is pushing hard to block U.S. involvement in the regional dispute.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi rejected a U.S. proposal to voluntarily freeze destabilizing action in disputed waters, such as China’s placement of an oil-drilling rig in the South China Sea.

China also announced it was stepping up activities in disputed areas of the sea, challenging claims by Vietnam, Philippines and other nations.

Until the Defense Ministry statement Saturday, China’s government had remained silent on the Su-27 encounter with the P-8.

Most state-run news outlets in China did not cover the affair, with major newspapers and wire services ignoring the story. Only CCTV, the state television network, reported on the Aug. 19 incident.

CCTV’s report from the network’s Washington correspondent quoted unspecified “Chinese experts” as saying the P-8 “posed a threat to their country’s military security over the South China Sea.”

The White House said Friday through Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisers, that the Chinese jet, which conducted a barrel roll over the P-8 some 135 miles east of Hainan Island was a “provocation.”

[hawkeyesvn]

Oh look! It's that time of the year again. It's time for more saber-rattling in Asia. Honestly, we should ignore this kind of news. We all know that both sides ( US and China ) never want to go anywhere further than this. I'm actually bored with this kind of China's act unless they try something new like " shooting at a fishinf ship with military ship ".

[SaintessHeart]

Here comes the pilgrims.......

UK Special Forces in Hi-Tech Hunt For James Foley's Killers in Iraq

British special forces are hunting the killer of US journalist James Foley, using an array of sophisticated equipment which could lead to the capture of Islamist extremists within days.

A 'significant force' of elite troops from the SAS have been deployed in northern Iraq and are coordinating hi-tech operations inside Iraq, Daily Mail reported.

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) are also conducting operations in Syria using drones which are able to fly for 24 hours at an altitude 18,000ft. This allows them to survey hundreds of miles of territory occupied by Isis fighters, including Raqqa, a city where several Western hostages are believed to have been held.

SAS soldiers and signallers joined Iraqi and Kurdish units fighting Isis in Iraq, and have separated into four-man teams in an effort to capture and identify 'Jihadi John' – the masked man seen in the video which depicts Foley's execution.

Once troops have captured a British jihadi suspect, samples will be taken from his blood and DNA and checked against UK medical records. Photographs will also be taken of the iris for identification purposes, as this part of the eye is unique from person to person.

A key suspect is 23 year-old Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, from Maida Vale in west London, who recently appeared on social media holding a severed head.

An SAS source told Daily Mail: "It is possible to identify British jihadis on the battlefield by intercepting their radio messages. When they're captured by the Iraqis or Kurds, we'll take a close interest in their questioning.

"Gathering information, such as their blood group and DNA, as well as voice recordings in either Arabic or English, will help us zero in on Jihadi John because it can be compared with existing data."

This data is sent via a portable satellite manned by a soldier from 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, which then beams it to a spy plane, such as the Rivet Joint aircraft flying overhead.

A team inside a Rivet Joint plane processes the data and then sends it back to GCHQ, the government's secret communications headquarters, where it is analysed and matched against records of British militants believed to be fighting in Syria and Iraq.

So-called "feedback information" is then sent to SAS teams.

GCHQ's database is believed to include recordings of thousands of voices extracted from phone and radio intercepts.

That is one cute name you gave to him. Please bring the bastard home before Christmas.

And JUSTICE :

Britain pardons World War II code-breaker castrated for homosexuality

LONDON, Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Queen Elizabeth has officially pardoned Alan Turing, the renowned World War II British code-breaker who was castrated in 1952 for his homosexuality and later committed suicide at the age of 41.

Turing was a brilliant logician who developed an electromechanical device called the Bombe, a code-breaking machine to decipher Nazi Enigma codes during WWII.

Although his war time work contributed greatly to Allied success, he was convicted of homosexuality in 1952. He chose to be chemically castrated in lieu of prison, and killed himself two years later at the age of 41 by eating an apple laced with cyanide.

"A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man," British Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said in a statement Tuesday.

"Dr. Turing deserves to be remembered and recognized for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science."

Turing wrote a 1937 paper about a hypothetical device to compute problems. The device became known as the Turing machine, and Turing has been called the "father of modern computing." The A.M. Turing Award, posthumously named after Turing, is sometimes referred to as the "Nobel Prize of Computing."

British Prime Minister David Cameron hailed Turing as "a remarkable man who played a key role in saving this country in World War II by cracking the German enigma code."

Oh yes. God save the Queen.

[Xellos-_^]

a pardon means Turning actually did something wrong

A exoneration would be much better.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

a pardon means Turning actually did something wrong

A exoneration would be much better.

Exactly. But apparently in the past, being gay is a crime, so he became a criminal.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by hawkeyesvn

Oh look! It's that time of the year again. It's time for more saber-rattling in Asia. Honestly, we should ignore this kind of news. We all know that both sides ( US and China ) never want to go anywhere further than this. I'm actually bored with this kind of China's act unless they try something new like " shooting at a fishinf ship with military ship ".

I know. China's act is a disgrace; they clearly have the mentality of a Third World country.

*Using Brian Blessed's tone of voice* Too much lead like the bloody Romans of old perhaps?

When China will be given enough rope until they still hang themselves with it, then they better not blame anyone for their misfortunes. All great countries get burned at some point in history when not careful.