probablybanned

Obvious prima facie. If we don't agree on this we don't inhabit the same intellectual universe.

Maybe your issue isn't the claim that the editorial slant is anti-white, but with my use of the term propaganda? Don't take that to mean much, I view most media as propaganda of one kind or another.

It's as though nobody remembers the Syrian ambulance boy who seemed to hit every single Western publication at once. Or the fawning PR pieces for the "White Helmets."

The insinuation that Forbes is not part of the propaganda conspiracy is absurd. This is exactly what it looks like when an NGO is peddling a narrative.

The gp isn't expressing fear, but annoyance. As you well know but choose to misrepresent.

You are a nuisance. Your comment reminds me of a two year old's reaction to being asked to stop running around screaming.

Auditing, perhaps? If someone manages to enter on a stolen passport I'm sure they'd like to be able to go back and see what image was captured and why the system returned a false positive.

Engineering is fundamentally about tradeoffs because you have multiple objectives (e.g. high performance and loose coupling) and it's not possible to be optimal in all of them simultaneously. However, it is easily possible for a poor design to be way, way off the Pareto frontier and not particularly good at anything. So everything is a tradeoff, but things can still be bad or good.

That's not even meant to be a comment one way or the other on Javascript, although I will not voluntarily adopt node.js for server side application development.

We especially can't fault Victorians while our technology keeps the horrors of venereal disease at bay.

That is only what you are signaling to Leftist ideologues who take any departure from Social Justice doctrine as an excuse to construct straw man caricatures.

And that's OK, because these people are toxic.

There are essential comms problems that will face any unmanned system that tries to take over the F-35's role. In the absence of a solution that is extremely low latency, immune to interference, and undetectable as radiated emission, you'd have to lean on computer AI to run the bulk of the mission autonomously. Nobody is ready to throw the switch on that.

A possible solution is to augment flights of manned fighters with unmanned drones as missile/bomb trucks. This gets you the force multiplier while keeping all communication short range and within line-of-sight. But you still need a stealthy, survivable manned fighter.

Overall it's a bit like saying why bother with a new generation of conventional cars when universal self-driving is right around the corner. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't quite as close as you think. These are questions that are more appropriately asked of the N+1 generation fighter that may or may not be on the drawing boards at this time.

P.S. I've noticed the F-35 takes flak from both the extreme technological pessimists (drones/fighters can't take over the A10's role, low & slow manned flight is the only way to do CAS) and the extreme optimists (drones will make all manned flight obsolete next year). Seems to me neither faction has a very strong grasp of the state of military tech.

For what it's worth, the F-22 has a similar system. Perhaps it's not such a problem because the aircraft is significantly larger.

I don't know why the cannon door issue is taking so long to rectify but I can guess: Whoever is responsible for the weapons systems can't fix this themselves, it requires a modification to the flight control law, which is handled by a different team and any modification to that system requires extensive testing. That team is likely to prioritize work items that actually impact systems they're responsible for, so the cannon languishes at the bottom of the queue, doing nothing but attracting a storm of blog commentary.

One ought to keep in mind when reading the DOT&E report that it's their job to tear the fighter limb from limb and take the program administration to task for every problem. Of course the general tone is going to be negative, we know the program is behind schedule and over budget. They still seem to be on track to build a multirole fighter that is at least tolerably competent at all of its assigned tasks (even CAS) and that's a win. Maybe it's not the best possible solution but it's what the Pentagon wanted.

I'll never understand the impulse to cancel programs when they're just turning the final corner to completion. I guess that's when they start to gain the highest public profile. There is no magical second system that will solve every problem, and at this point the thing to do is apply lessons learned from the procurement and R&D processes going forward, maybe plan a Block II to smooth out the rough edges. We're about a decade too late to flip the table in a fit of rage and start over.