Another aspect to mention is games can add a marketplace directly to the media. Paying extra to change the costume a character wears in a TV show wouldn't work, but paying to change a costume of a game character is something people do every day.
You are right that regardless of the reasons for phasing out AIM-7, there are reasons to take a look at your target before firing at it. I suppose I was only thinking about "hot war" scenarios, not police actions in civilian airspace.
As a counter example, the US has continued to use the BVR AIM-120 even after accidentally shooting down one of their own helicopters in an IFF failure. [1]
True overall, (although don't discount the effect of a pair of binoculars in the cockpit) but in this case we're talking about intercepting a radar target for visual confirmation. If you have a radar track, by definition you would have the type of guidance you need to put other sensors on target.
The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.
Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)
A Yacht is a large pleasure boat. There's no exact definition, but you wouldn't call a 15 ft motor boat a yacht or a 40 ft work boat. Any well maintained 30 ft plus boat that's not used for commercial purposes could reasonably be called a yacht.
Edited to add: The structure in the article is in my opinion, not a boat: Boats have a means of propulsion, (sails, oars, motor) this floating school is a barge.
Millions of years? Agriculture is less than 120,000 years old by most accounts. Are you suggesting the bulk of humanity returns to hunting and gathering? Even then accounts of early human history have us emerging less than a million years ago. I think permaculture practices have their benefits but that kind of hyperbole doesn't help the cause.
If you read a decent bit of WW2 history, incidents like this are fairly common. A bunch of young men in a high-stress situation open fire on phantom targets. Once one person / group starts shooting everyone else tends to join in unless command prevents it.
The founding of the United States of America was an experiment in the practical application of political philosophy. Without major philosophical disagreements between the Government of England and the colonies, the nation that sent men to the moon would not exist.
I agree that the lone wolf nature of the attack makes a difference, but if we are going to paint other lone wolf shooters as products of their political beliefs then we have to apply the same standard in this case.
>they generally were not paraded around as heroes by people of similar political leaning
I would invite you to look at discussions of the incident on reddit, it might change your mind. That said, I agree that the celebration of politically motivated violence is despicable, and the unwillingness of some the members and supporters of the republican party to condemn the recent riot is a terrible mistake.
My main goal with my first comment was to remind everyone that painting the people we have political disagreements with as irredeemable monsters can drive people from both sides to violence.
I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to reply instead of downvoting and moving on, this is a tough subject and I don't think my hasty 1st comment was sufficient to the task.
A "left-wing activist" actually shot the house majority whip in 2017, and he was actively trying to assassinate other republican politicians as well. [0]
I'll never vote for another republican for as long as Trumpism remains a part of the party, but we can't pretend that only one side has been radicalized to the point of violence.
Well you have to consider that this is the "one hobby" for a lot of people, so your own division of brain cycles leaves room for a group who works on things like this for fun.
Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?
How can you be certain that individuals have the tools to "look inside themselves" without any training?
Also I would appreciate a deeper response to the question of reading and language. The very language(s) that you use to "try to find something authentic and innate" were not the result of an individual choice, but of training to an agreed societal standard during your youth.
Do you think that you would be better able to understand your true individual self if you had been raised without any training in a language or the other aspects of your culture?
>What this means is that philosophy ultimately becomes an extended argument over which propositions to take as axiomatic.
I agree. It also involves extended arguments over the statements that follow from these axioms even amongst philosophers who agree the axioms are true.
>[W]hat almost invariably happens in practice is that individual philosophers act as advocates for the particular axioms that they believe actually hold.
I agree with this as well. My main point was about the structure of the arguments. I don't think arguing from an axiom you hold to be true turns the argument anecdotal.
Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here.
Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?
Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms.
In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y".
The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share.
Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy.
You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think.
Is it really that big of a difference? You still have to go to the one section of walmart where they stock the cheese or car batteries or whatever. Walmart can set up their own shelves to emphasize their own brands if they want.
If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.
If you're looking for a complete solution, there are a decent number of small wind turbines designed for charging 12v batteries (car batteries) on yachts.
Here's the 1st company I found on google. I can't personally vouch for the product, but it should give you an idea of what's available.