kgambit

@ Elerond I don't think so. The Su-30SM (which is what was involved on the October 3rd incursion) has a limited number of datalinks that restrict the number of targets it can "lock up", so you can't simply lock-up everything. Once you fire an Active radat seeker that's different story as the missile's radar can guide it. The Su-30SM Slot Back radar is capable of both air and surface searches. Doing a radar search of targets and actually getting a target lock aren't the same thing. The Su-30SM Slot Back (N-011M Bars-R) radar provides altitude, heading, range and speed information: discriminating between a stationary SAM and an aircraft at 40,000 feet travelling at 480 mph isn't brain surgery. In addition, the Su-30SM has a RWR that could have identified the type of threat based on the radar frequency band of the threat. Coupled with the active radars, the Su-30SM pilot should have been able to identify the type of threat and its location without resorting to a "panic mode" If the pilot can't make that type of call and/or if a pilot is panicking in that situation, he has no business flying a multi-million dollar piece of hardware. An AEW plane might have provided information about the target threat but AFAIK the Russians haven't deployed one to Syria and the Syrian AF doesn't have the capability.

@Elerond No. If the Russian Su-30 was simply going defensive as claimed in the Jane's article, there would be no reason for the Su-30 pilot to go for a radar lock on a Turkish aircraft and maintain it for over 5 minutes. The two actions are incompatible.

from the first Aviationist article again Why you keep bringing up the Syrian Mig incident is beyond me. I never mentioned it. What you assume is not my problem. From NATO on October 5th: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_123392.htm Given the Russian explanations for why the first incursion on October 3rd occurred, you'll excuse me if I refuse to accept anything they say as fact regarding either of those incidents or this one. YMMV

In this case you probably should have googled it yourself first. Russia admitted to one intrusion only, and when they "went further and locked up two F-16Cs with missile locks while still in Turkish territory" one was not in Turkish territory and was- according to the Turks- a Mig29 and hence SyAF, since everyone agrees the Russians have zero actual Migs in theatre. Full reuters quote addressing both issues: Also, official Turkish claim to the UN is 17 seconds of airspace violation which is at least roughly accurate for crossing a 2 km wide strip twice as they claimed. The information on the October 5th incident is interesting but immaterial since I never mentioned it or referred to it. I was referring strictly to the incidents on October 3 and 4 which involved Russian Su-30s. Since you're using the Aviationist as a source, the previous Avationist article (linked at the top of your Aviationist article) reports that Turkish airspace was violated on both the 3rd and 4th which your Reuter's source also confirms. The second Aviationist article also mentions that one or both of the F-16Cs were locked up. So the only point of disagreement is if two planes were locked up or only one, and whether the lock-ups occurred on successive days or only the 3rd. I have information that says the lock-ups occurred on both days. And according to Al Jazeera, the Russians did admit to both incursions. and the article goes on ....... That's freaking laughable given the avionics on the Su-30. That's the avionics equivalent of "the dog ate my homework". Notice that the Russian MOD refers to " consecutive incursions of Turkish airspace" - plural. The only early October incursions were the three on October 3rd, 4th and 5th and since the Russians would have no reason to offer an explanation for a Syrian incursion the Russian MOD must be referring to the two successive violations of Turkish airspace on the 3rd and 4th. Just so we are clear, I never claimed that Turkish airspace was violated for 5 minutes. I said that the Su-30 maintained missile lock for over 5 minutes. Again that's what your sources agree on. Frankly the Russian Su-30s could have stayed entirely on the Syrian side and the missile lock up would still be a provocative hostile act. If the ONLY incident involving the Russian violation of Turkish airspace had been the October 3rd incident with a missile lock up involving a single Turkish F-16C, that would have been sufficient for the Turks to have altered their ROEs. The subsequent incidents on October 4th and 5th, just made that decision easier. Again your point about the Mig-29 being outside of Turkish airspace is immaterial since I never mentioned that incident. But it's interesting to note that Reuters agrees that a missile lockup is, well let's say, out of the ordinary just to be generous. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that radar track unless you simply doubt the source entirely. It has no scale to go by and the border area appears to be drawn on - so I'm not expecting the border to be totally accurate, but it does show that very narrow spit of land where the Su-24 allegedly crossed. To be honest, only a black box recording coupled with actual radar tracking data overlayed on an accurate full scale map will assuage any issues over what exactly happened. The track does seem to indicate that that the Russian incursion did occur albeit briefly and the Turkish response was extremely rapid, claims of premeditation notwithstanding. One could just as easily question the Russian motives for providing the provocation in the first place. Or the reasons for the incidents on the 3rd and 4th. And by extension, were the Syrians proxies for the Russians for the events on the 5th. Seriously, the Russians (and Syrians) lock up Turkish aircraft, and violate Turkish airspace and this is all the Turks fault? All the Russians had to do was make a minor course adjustment and in seconds they would have avoided any incursion across that inconsequential strip of land and there would have been no problem. So explain to me WHY they didn't. (Short of denying the warnings were actually given.) Just out of curiosity, reports are that one of the Russian pilots is confirmed dead, shot by Turkmen fighters. Is the fate of the second pilot confirmed?

http://rapecrisis.org.za/rape-in-south-africa/ According to the stats its actually higher ...but I would very happy if it was less We have about 50 million people Bruce, check your math. From your source: In total, 62,649 sexual offences were reported countrywide for that period (2013/2014) . That's 171 per day and not all of those are rapes. From another source: Reported cases of rape stabilised, with a slight decrease of 3%, since 2008/9 from 47,588 to 46,253 in 2013/14. That's 127 per day. I think your 1300 figure is based on an estimate of how many rapes go unreported. The estimate of the number of unreported rapes is the issue - some sources place reported rapes as comprising only 10% of the total which would make your number correct but how do you quantify an unreported occurrence? If that 10% is accurate, that translates to nearly a half a million rapes per year. That's a staggering number.

Neither do I and yet here we are. As I said a little restraint on both sides would not have out of order. @Hildegard - Assuming a straight line path, the flying time is less than a minute - (6 - 8 km / 800 kph) * 3600 secs/hr = 27 - 36 seconds. The claim was that the Russian Su-24 was warned 10 times over a 5 minute interval but that the warnings began prior to the Su-24 crossing Turkish airspace. As in "change course you are about to violate Turkish airspace" which is exactly what you would expect. Again it's a matter of when the warnings were issued and why they were ignored. Of course you're simply free to view the insidious Turks as having schemed and plotted to shoot down a Russian aircraft. If so, I suggest you ask Gifted1 if he can also hook you up with some of that Fantastic Illuminati Mayonaise.

You mean except for this? Without concrete proof and the proper of the sequence of events that is a meaningless claim. The Russians could claim that they: 1. were not in Turkish air space 2. didn't lock on at all 3. that the plane was defending itself outside of Turkish air space etc. etc. Except the Russians admitted that they were in Turkish airspace on both prior occasions but said it was a "mistake" caused by "navigational error" or "weather conditions" (the reason tends to vary depending on the phases of the moon). Google it yourself. @darkpriest I've seen the same info - both about the warnings and the time over Turkish airspace. If the radar track is accurate, the time over Turkish territory was indeed brief. The Turkish response may have been disproportionate but why continue on a track where you're WARNED to stand clear. It would taken a minimal course correction to avoid the situation. How many times do you need to be warned?

You already have NATO jets operating in close enough proximity that a no holds barred ROE like that is going to end in more deaths. So unless that is what you are really interested in, those vague and open ended ROEs are untenable. Under those ROEs the US jets attacking the ISIS oil trucks would have been exposed to attack because I assure you BOTH sides would have been in BVR missile range. Do you really think that sort of ROE is a good idea? Seriously? FFS, the Turks were edgy after Syria shot down an unarmed recon plane in 2012, They also warned the Russians about violating their airspace after Russian Su-30s violated Turkish airspace on October 3rd (and again on October 4th) and then went further and locked up two F-16Cs with missile locks while still in Turkish territory. And you think this depends on the TURKS behavior? Maybe if the Russian jets had exercised a little more discretion and steered just a couple of miles south this whole mess would have been avoided. @darkpriest Thanks. At least I have a source. That's good enough.

Do you have a link? I'm not surprised by the other items, even the fighter escorts for fighter bombers, but this one is ridiculously open-ended and vague. Both sides have BVR missiles with ranges from 40 to over 80 nautical miles. Going weapons free with those sort of ROEs is a recipe for utter disaster. Are you maintaining that the Russians are now weapons free to engage any NATO aircraft that gets within missile range? That's utter lunacy.

Updated: (Steam keys only unless otherwise noted) Giveaways from the Slitherine Bundle: Conquest:Medieval Realms (Note this is a direct download only - not via steam) Frontline: Road to Moscow Battle Academy Games from the previous Paradox Bundle (Steam keys only): War of the Roses: Kingmaker Magicka (I'll bundle the entire Magicka package if someone wants it all) Magicka The Other Side of the Coin Magicka Horror Props Item Pack Magicka Wizard Wars Paradox Playtpus Robe Impire Teleglitch As always please send a PM and please request only1 game/bundle

Not sure if this has been posted before ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzayf9GpXCI based on the novel by Phillip K. **** (seriously? The author's name gets filtered?)

a wheel?

The true story behind the Essex - the basis for Melville's novel about the great white whale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs-JfPjgiA4 release December 11, 2015

Premieres September 15th on FX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWst4WokXUM 14th Century during the reign of Edward I

Avoid the Giveaway Links trading group and the guy that runs it: mko this is his profile: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mko258 and this is his group http://steamcommunity.com/groups/freegal/discussions/0/620696934098516708/ Guy is a dishonest trader and a scammer. His rep is fabricated.

I said it last time this infographic turned up: Lehmann Brothers went bust when Bush jr was still president. That's not a list of donations just for the current election cycle. According to Politifact.com that is a cumulative list of all contributions dating from 1999 to present day for Clinton, and 1989 to present day for Bernie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/ And Politifact says those numbers are extremely accurate ......

What has Erin Moran been up to lately? Last report (and this was over a year ago, possibly 2) was that she had been kicked out of her trailer park and was homeless. No updates after that.

You're not talking about drag but tidal deceleration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

1. Does that actually prevent updating when you try to a launch a game that has an update available for it? 2. Where is that option? There are no options for "updates": there are the "downloads" options, but there's no option like you suggest that I can see. Origin>Application Settings, scroll down to Updates, uncheck "Automatically keep my games up to date" I don't know if it prevents it from trying to update on launch, but launching in offline mode does. Apologies here as well. I assumed you were talking about both Origin and Steam. No matter. But thanks for the tip on turning off updates on Origin.

Exactly how did you do that? I thought that option had been removed and the only three update options were: Always keep this game up to date Update only when you launch High Priority - update this game before all others Unless you play offline, my understanding was that one of those options is going to trigger. If there is a way around that, please share. I've lost a ton of EUIV time when Paradox redid the world map.

Chemical explosion at a container facility. CCTV quoted police saying it took place at a facility operated by Tianjin Rui Hai International Logistics—a firm that transports hazardous materials. There were two other similar explosions just recently: one in July at a petrochemical plant in Shandong province and one in April at a paraxylene plant in Fujian.

I seem to remember them being about $30. I thought the XP add on was $25. Which begs the question, if you backed at a kick starter level that includes the XP, does this only provide for Part One, or do you get both? Both. (And I believe it applies whether you bought it during the KS or as a late backer.)