Comments on: Friday Linkzookery – 31 Aug 2009

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:47:35 +0000

That Varyag article has an error. “Shi Lang… the Ming Dynasty admiral who conquered Taiwan in 1681″ should be “… the Manchu (Qing) Dynasty admiral who conquered Taiwan from the Ming Dynasty…”. According to wikipedia he had previously been with the Mings, but defected.

There is a profound misunderstanding in “In short, the military dynamic in the Pacific is changing. But it is not because the Chinese may one day gain a small number of their own, far-worse aircraft carriers. It is what they are planning to do to overcome our own aircraft carriers and other traditional strengths.”

The thing is, they need a combined approach to make it work, just as the mediaeval English armies with archers still needed knights (those got separated at Bannockburn, leading to disaster). Aircraft carriers are necessary for the Chinese to shape any fight. Without them, opposing forces would not need to deploy their own and they wouldn’t be vulnerable to Chinese submarines etc. Also, without them, Chinese naval operations wouldn’t be able to support advances within range of land based aircraft – and within range of aircraft from other aircraft carriers, kept in locations secure from submarines etc.

Incidentally, that polarising, locking, shaping role is why battleships were not useless in the Second World War; they were just unable to be used directly and traditionally. Think Channel Dash, not Yamato.

By: Toejam

Toejam — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:02:37 +0000

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55338

Rest in Peace Captain.

Thank you for your service and for making the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the United States.

By: Formerly known as Skeptic

Formerly known as Skeptic — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:42:44 +0000

Well, I cant very well fault you guys for accurately reporting a story that then changes, can I?! I really don’t like this whole “stealth edit” thing that you fell prey to here either.

By: Murdoc

Murdoc — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:06:50 +0000

Duh. A quick look at the article via Google’s cache shows that they originally did write “incinerated test dummy target.” Not sure when they changed it.

Did you email them about it?

By: Murdoc

Murdoc — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:04:20 +0000

RE: Incinerated Test Dummy

This is a bit interesting. When I added the link to that story, I dropped the word “target” from “test dummy target.” However, the word “incinerated” was in the story. I can’t specifically recall if it was worded “incinerated test dummy target” or if it was something a bit different, but the word “incinerated” was in the story.

Now it isn’t.

By: Formerly known as Skeptic

Formerly known as Skeptic — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:15:44 +0000

Also for clarity, according to the linked story, the Air Force did not “incinerate” a “test dummy” (as cool as that would be ;)) with the ATL. It was a “dummy target” which was further described as a “target board” and they only claimed to have hit it. The damage, if any, was not described. I complain incessantly about the MSM having misleading headlines that don’t reflect what is in the actual story. I would hope you in the new media would do better with your links. That’s one of the reasons I’m here.

By: Nadnerbus

Nadnerbus — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:12:05 +0000

Sorry, sometimes I just can’t help myself. I know, its like the next type of humor up from puns, but just below fart jokes.

By: AW1 Tim

AW1 Tim — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:20:38 +0000

Sigh…. everyone wants to be an editor these days… :)

By: Nadnerbus

Nadnerbus — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:05:55 +0000

Federal “forearms” laws? I never knew. I bet I’m committing a double felony carrying around my Popeye sized guns =P

Even out here in the Californialand you can get black powder guns without any of the usual DROS and crap. They are considered curio and are not subject to the rest of the firearms laws. NYPD needs to pull their heads out of their ass.

Also, I’ll still be disappointed with any Alien movie that doesn’t have some cool guns and stuff. If they could get James Cameron to collaborate though, I might have a nerdgasm.

By: AW1 Tim

AW1 Tim — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:21:56 +0000

Black powder weapons, except those which use in-line mechanisms, are exempt from federal forearms laws, and the laws of almost every state. In fact, if you read the Federal definition of a firearm from the 1968 gun control act, you will find that it specifically exempts antique weapons, and replicas thereof as even being a “firearm” for the purposes of the act. That definition has never been changed.

And UPS will not only deliver a muzzle loader to your door, they will also deliver black powder.

respects,