This and similar criticisms of the F-35 are just silly. I can take any other aircraft in the U.S. inventory and put it in situations where it will lose engagements against other domestic or foreign aircraft and systems. Multi-role fighters like the F-35, Rafale, Viper, Hornet, and Gripen aren't meant to be dominant in any one specific area. They're meant to be flexible platforms that can be tailored for different operations and flight packages based on the needs of the mission at the time, and like most multi-role fighters, they each tend to be a little better at certain roles than others.
Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft, radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of war these aircraft will take part in.
Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe. However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters.
Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is absurd.
This is a gift to hackers, government snoops, and the like: access is now granted to anyone with the trivial ability to intercept SMS messages, spoof cell towers (Stingrays), or clone SIM cards.
This is one of the most honest and genuine observations I've ever heard; an observation that one can likely only fully appreciate in the face of mortality.
From the sound of it, the important issue in question is depression itself, and not so much the efficacy of SSRIs. If the causes surrounding the physiological roots of depression are unknown or incorrect, no medicinal approach will be able to accurately address the issue, thus always leaving room for the placebo argument.
Not necessarily. We do not need to know the mechanism of an illness to test the efficacy of a treatment. In fact, identifying an efficacious treatment is frequently a key step in developing a model of the underlying illness. There are a number of treatments for depression that have shown promise across multiple studies (and most studies control for placebo effect, and good studies control for active placebo where possible). SSRIs and SNRIs have shown promise for short-term alleviation of symptoms depression, with some serious concerns about long-term use. Cognitive therapy has proven to be quite effective. Some studies of mindfulness (although there are concerns about study quality) indicate great promise there as well.
One thing that is starting to become clear is that effective long-term treatment is likely to require more than one therapy, tailored to the specific situation and needs of the individual patient. Any study, like this one, that implies that depression has a simple mechanism and an obvious cure is about the only one that you can be fairly sure has no validity.
Agreed. It would seem that unless your system is totally free of all forms of dependencies (including the human kind), arguing that patching is a bad idea simply because it shouldn't have to be patched in the first place is just poor advice.
While earthquake light does seem like one of the better explanations, the length of time it was observed (>30 min) would make it one of the longest observed earthquake light sightings.
Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft, radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of war these aircraft will take part in.
Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe. However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters.
Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is absurd.