lajhsdfkl

13 ms·

91.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Can you explain to me in simple words what you are refuting in your comment? Nowhere did I suggest that the only way to become rich was to sell practical products. I will state that this is the primary way people acquire vast amounts of m
92.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
So do you have an actual proposal for how we should be rewarding these people? Your rhetorical question provides no value. I want to know how we should decide who should be rewarded, how we can obtain the money to reward them and what benef
93.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> The largest rewards have for some time been going to equity plays and financial schemes The largest rewards are going to people using their money to finance the creation of businesses that create products people want to buy? Yeah that
94.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
I think it should be obvious that you won't get rich unless you sell something... None of those people sold things or seemed to be interested in the process of selling things (except Shockley and that point is moot since the coinventor
95.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
What company do you work for so I can point out 20 different tech companies with significantly better benefits?
96.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
Of course he could be talking about Europe but there are very few European "tech" companies. Tech is a horrible descriptor of course, he could be talking about 1000 different things. OP seems to be referring specifically to tech s
97.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
It lost to the F-16 in a dogfight. Dogfights are not relevant in modern warfare and were not the consideration in the F-35s design (as is readily obvious). When you have missiles traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 2 whether you can win in a
98.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
False equivalence. The Spanish Armada was massive in scale but there was not an exponential difference in capability against the British Armada as there is with US aviation technology and the rest of the world.
99.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
>One wonders why the articles keep coming if that's true. Because they always manage to receive a ton of clicks? If you look at every new US weapons platform for the past 60 to 70 years there has always been huge amounts of negativi
100.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
I said it was the most interesting use of the F-35 not the only use...
101.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
>The F-35 still has a long way to go before it will be ready for combat. That was the parting message of Dr. Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, in his last annual report. Some F-35s have already
102.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
>That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce. Given that the F-35 was built with the latest tech that no other advanced ec
103.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
You can't rely on satellites in a war against a nuclear power. Satellites will be the first thing to go.
104.
by lajhsdfkl 9y ago
This is from April 1 2017 and much of what was written in this article does not apply any longer. The reason the US does not go 100% into drones is because drone jamming technology is not something that can easily be countered (the Russians