nemo

Because that depends on human mutation rate -- which is much slower than virus, due to lifespan and reproduction rate.

Except there is an interesting case that modern medicine make it less lethal enough in the pocket with modern medicine (i.e. developed nations) but deadly to those without access to those. So the virus keep on mutating inside the pockets but killing off those outside. In which case you have an humanitarian disaster. But do you even care, as you are inside the pocket... Or you have so many infected that there are too many strains for you to develop countermeasures. As human density has become such there is no pockets that is unexposed, compare to the prehistoric world. In which case, you will have extinction.

The original cold and flu might be so deadly that only ones with resistance were left alive to reproduce. And it could take generations to achieve. If that's acceptable to you, then I have no words to convince you otherwise.

really? more people infected, faster new strains appears. You need to slow down the spread enough that you have time to develop new vaccines and time to apply those vaccines before the new strains appear. By giving up controlling the spread, you speed up time before the new strains comes up. Suicidal, if I may say so.

Does this has anything with Kobe Steel faking qualification on materials it manufactured? So X-2 may not be safe to fly due to this and too expensive to redo with proper materials, hence it got canceled?

A small drogue chute, to stabilize the aircraft, in case it stalls. Fairly common in early test-flights, when one opens up the flight envelope. Here a SAAB Gripen with one, during stall tests over lake Vättern: http://www.flygplan.info/images/gripen_svart1.jpg unrecoverable spins, not stall. Stall is caused by too slow a speed to maintain the lift required for flying. A drag chute in this case would be counterproductive.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/abe-japan-fully-us-pressuring-north-korea-50351495 Here is the debate. The part in the article is from 47:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5-EuYsVeg Abe answered with that as an answer to a question that starts at 46:46 by the leader of the JCP (Japanese Communist Party), saying in his question that supporting the US which has "all options on the table" includes a military option and that Japan must not get drawn into a war because Japan must not do war. Pretty good display of acting for a puppet country don't you think? And let's not pretend that the CCP does any better Abe will be singing another tune if war breaks out. After all, didn't he changed the law so Japan can join in to assist its allies (read US), and Abe will be welcoming a chance to set a precedent for use of force outside of its borders. At very minimum, he will have to allow US to operate out of its territory in case of war due to treaty obligation. If you think otherwise, I don't know what else to say. Unlike Japan, China is one of the few country that is strong enough and have enough backbone for a truly independent foreign policy. At very minimum, China didn't have a leader that hurried to lick Trump's boot when he got elected. In contrast, China actually faced down Trump when he is stupid enough to challenge One China policy before he inaugurated.

Let's not pretend Japan has a foreign policy independent of US's. It would be news if Japan announces anything less than full support of US's stance. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/abe-japan-fully-us-pressuring-north-korea-50351495 Here is the debate. The part in the article is from 47:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5-EuYsVeg

Not only others do not care for it, neither does the other real party in the dispute -- Bhutan. The area in question is already unofficially settled when China is willing to trade larger disputed area for it. Bhutan wanted the territorial dispute with China to be settle as quick as possible so it can establish official diplomatic ties with China. However, India had repeated tried to sabotage the settlement -- issue of Doklam, for example, is raised only midway in the discussion, when a previous proposal was about to be agreed to. Do note that Bhutan has never directly state that they asked India to intervene in this, and India didn't even bother to ask Bhutan before they send the troops. Indian diplomacy in its own neighborhood is actually quite aggressive, even colonial in terms of temperament, much more so compare to China.

Size of the array of 052C is 4.2 meter. Size of the array of 052D is 4.5 meters. Size of the array in 055 is rumored to be 6 meters. Note 14 ft is around 4.2 meters, and 6 meters is around 20 feet. So 055 is essentially what US navy would like for a full sized AMDR follow-on to Aleigh Burke. And 052C and 052D at mid life refit will have a sensor that will at least be a match to AMDR fitted to Burke 3. Your picture of so called 052E is definitely fan generated, so not trustworthy. That is some interesting specific data dimensions. I don't mean to come off negatively, but I have to ask, is the numbers on the dimensions being published in actual books or stated by officials or is it pixel counting estimating work by net users? The pixel counting way wouldn't necessarily fully discredit an estimation of 4.2, 4.5, and 6.0 meters, but it would call interest in a closer look in how the pixel counting came to its measurements (for anyone that was interested debating that at least). Well for me, just knowing that the Type 55 having bigger ones than the Type 52D and Type 52C is good enough. Well anyway, just interested in where those numbers are coming from. Never claimed that the pictures were of the Type 52E. Read more carefully please. That's what I remembered from the discussion on the net. Since you asked about the source, I did a search to try to find the source. For Type 346 radar of 052C, I found a dimension of 3.9m x 4.6m cited in lots of places, including baidu encyclopedia page -- I am not able to track down the source, but it probably come from a single picture of the radar before the external cover is mounted. The figures that I cited before is probably external dimension, pixel counted by someone. The 346A radar of 052D actually have a news article source in Chinese, the expert interviewed state that 346A is larger the base 346, and the dimension is 4.3m. So it's in the ball park of the figure I cited. The figure for 055 is speculated, so beware.

Size of the array of 052C is 4.2 meter. Size of the array of 052D is 4.5 meters. Size of the array in 055 is rumored to be 6 meters. Note 14 ft is around 4.2 meters, and 6 meters is around 20 feet. So 055 is essentially what US navy would like for a full sized AMDR follow-on to Aleigh Burke. And 052C and 052D at mid life refit will have a sensor that will at least be a match to AMDR fitted to Burke 3. Your picture of so called 052E is definitely fan generated, so not trustworthy.

See the above *Indian* article on why the whole mass started. The fact is that India overstepped, and was forced to back down. China was kind enough not to rub India's face in it. When this mess ended, the spokes person on Indian side announced near simultaneous withdrawal, but the spokes person on Chinese side specifically said that they will construct whenever and whatever they see fit -- and there is no objection from the Indian side. And stated in the article, India will no longer patrol disputed area, so the matter is moot. Used to be that the presence of Chinese in this area was periodic patrols, but now it seems China is going to establish permanent all season garrison opposite to Indian garrison already in place. Also note India no longer have preponderance in power in this sector. China has moved about 3 brigades into the area. While in terms of manpower, both side are about equal, but they are NOT in terms of firepower. Indian mountain troops are particularly deficient in artillery -- heavy artillery like 155mms are corps level assets. Used to be that a single Chinese mechanized division has more firepower than an Indian Mountain Corps, but China just reorganized divisions into brigades (i.e. corp command brigades directly). One of those brigades may have more firepower than the whole Indian Mountain division station in the area.

catchnews.com Doklam: How India misjudged China’s intentions and it escalated into a major standoff7-8 minutesThe India-China military standoff at Doklam was apparently based on Indian misperception of Chinese intentions. An alternative narration of events leading to the military standoff suggests that the skirmish might have been blown out of proportion and was completely unnecessary. And even though eventually the standoff was resolved through diplomatic negotiations, India was not a net gainer at the end of it. The Chinese army personnel are still present at a distance of 250 metres from the site of the confrontation. This is where they were before June 16. The Indian Army meanwhile has vacated the area that the Chinese wanted vacated. According to sources in the security establishment, the standoff which was projected as a result of Chinese road construction activity in the Doklam area was anything but that. A Chinese motorable road apparently already exists in the area. It has been there since 2003 or 2005, according to different estimates. The standoff, according to these sources, had its origins not in any road-construction activity in the disputed area between China and Bhutan but in the destruction of two Indian Army bunkers in the area. There are apparently two dozen bunkers in that area. Known as Self-Help Bunkers (SBH), they are not occupied all the time. The Chinese have for long objected to two bunkers that they claim have been built in an area which is within their perception line of their border with Bhutan. Although Bhutan claims the area, Indian Army units under the control of 17 Mountain Division at Gangtok in Sikkim, patrol it. This includes the area where the two disputed bunkers are located. The Chinese periodically use bulldozers to destroy the two bunkers whenever they are unoccupied. The Indian Army units patrolling the area equally periodically reconstruct them. This is not considered unusual activity in a disputed border area. Since this is China’s border with Bhutan but is patrolled by the Indian Army, the issue is never raised to a higher pitch. In November 2007 also the Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) had moved into Bhutan's Doklam Plateau and demolished a hut close to some Indian bunkers. The hut was apparently a rest house used by the Indian Army. The Indian side kept the matter quiet as the bunkers were located in Bhutan but manned by Indian Army personnel. In July that year, the PLA had also written to the 17 Mountain Division Headquarters about two “illegal” Indian bunkers but they were at Batangla near the disputed tri-junction (where the borders of India, Bhutan and China meet) warning of “adverse consequences” if they were not removed. The matter was swept under the carpet as the two armies were to conduct joint exercises a month later in December 2007. In 2008 also the PLA had destroyed two bunkers in precisely the same area in Doklam where this June’s standoff took place. Whenever new Indian Army unit are deployed in the area, the outgoing units apparently don’t inform the incoming unit that the breaking and reconstruction of these two bunkers in particular takes place routinely. According to sources, this summer when a new army unit was deployed for patrolling the area they decided to spruce up the bunkers, including the two disputed ones. The PLA soldiers suddenly saw something new happening– the Indian soldiers were painting the two bunkers in question in regulation brownish-saffron army colour. The PLA soldiers could not comprehend the enthusiasm of the newly deployed Indian army unit and thought that something more permanent was being built. Predictably, when the bunkers were unoccupied, the PLA brought out its bulldozers and demolished the bunkers. When the Indian patrol discovered this, not knowing the previous history of such demolitions and reconstructions, they informed their superior officers about the aggressiveness of the Chinese. The message that Chinese bulldozers were in action in Doklam, according to sources, went all the way up to the Major General who is the General Officer Commanding of the 17 Mountain Division based at Gangtok. He in turn informed his bosses in Army Headquarters in Delhi. Sources claim that the Chinese use of bulldozers was linked to possible road construction activities by the army authorities sitting in Gangtok. They presumed that the Chinese were extending the existing road from Doka La (Doka Pass) through the Doklam Plateau towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri near the Jampheri Ridge. In a fact sheet issued on 2 August, Beijing also claimed that Indian soldiers had interrupted road-building activity by the PLA in the Doklam area on 18 June 18 and that India had been informed in advance about its road-building activity in the area. India also brought in bulldozers into the disputed area. How does this square with the claim that the confrontation with China started over the destruction of two Indian Army bunkers? Security sources who questioned the nature of the confrontation still insisted that there was no road-building activity going on when the stand-off began on 16 June 16. They said it was quite possible that the Chinese intend to build a road in that area and that often the Chinese strengthen their claim to disputed areas by starting construction activities there. The Indian side, they claimed, perhaps aware of the road-building intention of the Chinese, escalated the issue all the way to Delhi. “The fact remains that the confrontation began with the local Indian Army patrol complaining of the Chinese destroying their two bunkers,” they said. The senior army officers in Delhi also believed the road construction theory and instructed the local army unit to prevent any road construction and stay put. Bhutan was taken on board and a full-scale military standoff began. General Bipin Rawat in fact visited both the 17 Mountain Division at Gangtok and the 27 Mountain Division at Kalimpong to boost the morale of his forces and take stock of the ground situation. The Chinese, meanwhile, could not fathom why India was over-reacting. The Chinese media went on the offensive; and on the Indian side, security experts exaggerated and overplayed the strategic threat to India from the Chinese road construction activity. A full-scale propaganda war over claims, counter-claims and charges and counter-charges began. At the end of it, through a “near-simultaneous” withdrawal of forces to pre-June 16 positions, the standoff was resolved. Both sides claimed victory but the Chinese went back only 250 metres while to maintain peace India had to give up patrolling the area where two destroyed bunkers had existed. The Chinese got what they wanted. Although the military standoff is behind us, perhaps an assessment still needs to be made of the strategic cost-benefit analysis of the confrontation, the nature of information flow, the response and analysis systems within the Indian armed forces and the wisdom of the current crop of Indian Army commanders.

Actually the J31 is MUCH closer to the YF-22 than the F-35. The only part that seems to be lifted from the F-35 is the intake design. If anything, DSI intake is one part they do not need to lift, if they actually did any lifting. Chinese had been tracking DSI development since the start -- they actually modified an J-7 with DSI to test the concept. FC-1/JF-17, which uses DSI, is developed after X-35, but is in service before F-35. J-20 uses DSI, so does J-10B/C. All three implementation looks different in shaping and details. If anything, the implementation of FC-1/J-17 is closest to F-35, event that is different in details. J-7 tech demonstrator and FC-1/JF-17 actually predates so called hack, so I don't really see how you can call that a copy.

It is quite possible, depending on the system and whether it has a connection to the Internet or other vulnerable network. Certainly the case on some civilian ships, which can be controlled remotely. I am quite certain not the case on USN ships. Yeah, I was more thinking a civilian ship being put on a collision course. Well if its not that, its going to happen to somebody sooner or later. Gawd help us if its an LNG carrier. I think you're on to something with the cyber aspect. Spoof the civilian ship's GPS, use the Automatic Identification System for targeting (everyone is squawking, remember), watch the fireworks. Not quite sure how that would work. If you are shifting the GPS coordinates for everyone, that will include the target -- hence no collision will happen, unless you are directing it to something that does not use GPS -- such as a shoal or rock.