<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/915936</link>
		<description>Comments by recision</description>
<item>
<title>Nicole Peeler : (More) Thoughts on Sex in Urban Fantasy. . .</title>
<link>http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2011/03/more-thoughts-on-sex-in-urban-fantasy/#IDComment424034284</link>
<description>&amp;quot; D. H. Lawrence also explores sexuality and character in great detail, but he is inchoate and crazy, bless. &amp;quot;  Hahaha  :-)  Nicely said. </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2011/03/more-thoughts-on-sex-in-urban-fantasy/#IDComment424034284</guid>
</item><item>
<title>9 to 5 Mac | Apple Intelligence : Perhaps vindicating Apple&#039;s strategy, Adobe officially kills Flash for mobile</title>
<link>http://9to5mac.com/2011/11/09/perhaps-vindicating-apples-strategy-adobe-reportedly-kills-flash-for-mobile#IDComment219770878</link>
<description>&amp;quot;Riddens&amp;quot;? </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://9to5mac.com/2011/11/09/perhaps-vindicating-apples-strategy-adobe-reportedly-kills-flash-for-mobile#IDComment219770878</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : British and French Officials Say Sharing Carriers a Silly Idea</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/09/03/british-and-french-officials-say-sharing-carriers-is-a-silly-idea/#IDComment96923340</link>
<description>How is this for an idea.  France and Britain buy one carrier each (of a common design) and operate them independently according to their own national agenda.  However, they buy a third carrier(same design) together, which is used predominately for the training of their personnel - and would have a mixed nationality crew.  The two independent carriers would conduct operations and exercises and deployments etc, but would not be used for training purposes normally. They would be full time fighting ships essentially, that would only need to come offline for major refits etc.  New crews and training, work-ups, etc, could be carried out on the joint carrier. That could ensure close operational cooperation experience with the two navies, and the carrier would not need to ever get too far away from home waters - under normal circumstances.  However, in a real emergency, the third carrier could be pressed into service as required. An agreement could be worked out in advance between France and Britain about how that could work.  This would cut costs and spread the costs, and increase commonality of equipment and training.    ???  PS.    They would probably have to go with a catapult design for all three. </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 4 Sep 2010 08:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/09/03/british-and-french-officials-say-sharing-carriers-is-a-silly-idea/#IDComment96923340</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : IISS Says China Now Has More Warships Than U.S.</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/31/iiss-says-china-now-has-more-warships-than-u-s/#IDComment96552270</link>
<description>Lets try an interesting word game... &amp;quot;Killing 350 million people is not the problem. US citizens will destroy their corrupt government first before facing the Chinese military. The Citizenry of the US is not our enemy.&amp;quot; There, fixed it for ya. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/31/iiss-says-china-now-has-more-warships-than-u-s/#IDComment96552270</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Helicopters Equipped With Acoustic Shot Detection Bound for Afghanistan</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/19/helicopters-equipped-with-acoustic-shot-detection-bound-for-afghanistan/#IDComment94322879</link>
<description>Agreed.  :-) It tells you where to fly away from. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/19/helicopters-equipped-with-acoustic-shot-detection-bound-for-afghanistan/#IDComment94322879</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Helicopters Equipped With Acoustic Shot Detection Bound for Afghanistan</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/19/helicopters-equipped-with-acoustic-shot-detection-bound-for-afghanistan/#IDComment94307399</link>
<description>Another technological wet dream that wont go anywhere. I imagine at best it would give a zone indication like the early missile warning devices in aircraft. And be about as useful. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:59:43 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/08/19/helicopters-equipped-with-acoustic-shot-detection-bound-for-afghanistan/#IDComment94307399</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Those 260,000 Stolen Documents From the State Dept.</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/07/07/those-260000-stolen-documents-from-the-state-dept/#IDComment85744336</link>
<description>Wouldn&amp;#039;t he have to be an American to be a traitor...??? Seeing as he is Australian - wouldn&amp;#039;t that make you statement assinine at best!!! </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/07/07/those-260000-stolen-documents-from-the-state-dept/#IDComment85744336</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : B-1B Lancer Fleet To the Boneyard?</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82374699</link>
<description>Interesting recent article by Richard Aboulafia  ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=317&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=3...&lt;/a&gt; ) Saying amongst other things:  5. Heavy defense spending. A few wingnuts decry &amp;ldquo;Obama&amp;rsquo;s defense cuts,&amp;rdquo; but the FY 2011 budget is bigger than any we had under George W. Bush. A $140 billion procurement budget is as good as it gets. </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82374699</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Putin Declares New Russian Built PAK-FA Stealth Fighter Better Than F-22 Raptor</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/18/putin-declares-new-russian-built-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-better-than-f-22-raptor/#IDComment80916446</link>
<description>Is that like You-are dead (you&amp;#039;re). Or bring out Your dead...??? </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/06/18/putin-declares-new-russian-built-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-better-than-f-22-raptor/#IDComment80916446</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Retired U.S. and Chinese Flag Officers Try to Smooth Relations Over BBQ and Fishing Trips</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment77321113</link>
<description>&amp;quot; Points taken in regard to the difficulty of bringing a peasant country into the modern era. But you do realize that some of what you said sounds like apology for tyrannical misdeeds. The Great Leap Forward was done for the same reason, and it didn&amp;#039;t end too well for the people.  &amp;quot;  Yes, the GLF &amp;amp; Cultural Revolution were epic clusterf**ks on an appalling scale based on ideology and arrogance. At some point we need to let it go and move on though..?  &amp;quot; When the people have little to no say in what is done, even if it is supposedly on their behalf, there is a recipe for abuse. &amp;quot; Suddenly I had visions of TARP and Bank Bailouts - or is that being too cynical?  LOL.  Being skeptical is OK, thats fair enough because they do have ground to make up, even if and when they become more open and representative... </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 12:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment77321113</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Dissident Web Site Reports Kim Jong Il Ordered North Korean Military Prepare for Combat</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/dissident-web-site-reports-kim-jong-il-ordered-north-korean-military-ready-for-combat/#IDComment77167012</link>
<description>And the story I heard was they kinda made a habit of collecting VC heads. They were about as badass as it came there and the VC &amp;amp; NVA were in no hurry to fight them if they had a choice. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 09:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/dissident-web-site-reports-kim-jong-il-ordered-north-korean-military-ready-for-combat/#IDComment77167012</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Dueling Rifle Rounds: It’s All About the Wound Channel</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/dueling-rifle-rounds-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-the-wound-channel/#IDComment77166659</link>
<description>True, if most &amp;quot;riflemen&amp;quot; are actually just spraying and praying then it doesn&amp;#039;t really matter what they are armed with does it. It might as well be a stubby carbine that doesn&amp;#039;t get full velocity on the bullet. At least it makes a really nice loud BANG. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 08:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/dueling-rifle-rounds-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-the-wound-channel/#IDComment77166659</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Navy Shipbuilding Plan Not Affordable; New Boomers to Cost $8 Billion Each: CBO</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/navy-shipbuilding-plan-not-affordable-new-boomers-to-cost-8-billion-a-piece-cbo/#IDComment77165743</link>
<description>Haha  :-) True dat !!! </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 08:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/25/navy-shipbuilding-plan-not-affordable-new-boomers-to-cost-8-billion-a-piece-cbo/#IDComment77165743</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Retired U.S. and Chinese Flag Officers Try to Smooth Relations Over BBQ and Fishing Trips</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment76983643</link>
<description>&amp;quot;...If the relationship between these two countries becomes adversarial, it will almost certainly be because the Chinese chose it to be so.&amp;quot;  Ohh, give me a break... </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 02:11:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment76983643</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Retired U.S. and Chinese Flag Officers Try to Smooth Relations Over BBQ and Fishing Trips</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment76983629</link>
<description>The point of back channel dialog is to overcome misunderstandings and cultural differences.   You might be surprised to learn that the Chinese are not entirely enamoured with American attitudes either. Would you believe that they think their interests are at least as important as Americas...??? </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 02:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/24/retired-u-s-and-chinese-flag-officers-try-to-smooth-relations-over-bbq-and-fishing-trips/#IDComment76983629</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Begun The Army GCV Source Selection Has</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76795802</link>
<description>EXACTLY!!! There is no safety on a battle field, and &amp;quot;more armour&amp;quot; is but an illusion. Get used to the idea you are going to take casualties in a war, accept it, move on and then do something useful with your time and money. 50 ton APC/IFV&amp;#039;s are nonsense. </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 14:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76795802</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Begun The Army GCV Source Selection Has</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76758164</link>
<description>Hi William,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks, it was good to get your reply.&lt;br /&gt;Was interested to read your comments about IFV and APC.&lt;br /&gt;Although I think my comments still stand&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Who&amp;#039;s IFV and APC&amp;#039;s are getting up armoured?&lt;br /&gt;What expectation is there that there would be a realistic chance of these systems coming into conflict?&lt;br /&gt;Why would you try to up-gun a Troop taxi, that is a misapprehension of the purpose of an APC is it not?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you have protected your squad against rifle and .50 fire then the carrier is primarily there to transport.&lt;br /&gt;the fighting is a function of other units.&lt;br /&gt;If you can add some offensive firepower on, for little penalty, that is nice to have, but it really isn&amp;#039;t what the vehicle is for.&lt;br /&gt;the cannon is for suppressive fire.&lt;br /&gt;heavy hitting is the job of other units. (tanks, helis, air, arty...)&lt;br /&gt;Particularly as putting heavier armament on just makes it a more urgent target and pretty much inevitably makes it slower and less maneuverable.&lt;br /&gt;Then when it gets hit by heavy enemy fire, you lose 9+ mean instead of 3-4.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Or am I missing something?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers&lt;br /&gt;Peter</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 08:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76758164</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : Begun The Army GCV Source Selection Has</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76638279</link>
<description>&amp;quot;and soon the standard 25mm will be way undergunned. &amp;quot;  .... way undergunned for what exactly??? I keep hearing this and I am yet to hear a good rational for that claim. What exactly do people think combined arms means.... Did I not get the memo on that being obsolete theory or something...  </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 10:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/05/21/begun-the-army-gcv-source-selection-has/#IDComment76638279</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>