Bri

Both the archer and 0 use a "particle storage tank". No drive just a mere battery that needs to be recharged.

As for the rest of the Macross series (ie: Frontier, 7, et al), Harmony Gold only has certain rights to these. In 2002, Harmony Gold tradedmarked the UN Spacy logo and the name 'Macross' in the USA, so any series and merchandising featuring these would have to go through Harmony Gold if they were to be released over here. Though I'm not sure if Harmony Gold only filed their trademark in the USA, or if they filed it worldwide.

The trademark covers the US and Canada (can't find any info on Mexico but seems likely due to NAFTA). Harmony Gold renewed their Robotech trademark here in the Benelux (part of EU) in 2006. But Macross and UN Spacy are not copyrighted. I also checked the WIPO in Geneva: Macross is not a world wide trademark either. Seems HG is mostly interested in the North American market.

-edit- Seems HG bought the Macross trademark on a national basis in the UK and Germany in 1999 in Europe. Should run out in 2009 (TMs last 10 years) Some Japanese anime related firm has bought the U.N.Spacy rights EU-wide

Is it specified that canon refers to the sun-earth Lagrange points? Any 3-body system can have langrange points if the smallest mass is negligible compare to the other two. A 5-500 km Factory satelite could be parked in one of the earth-moon Lagrange-points without going against canon. Those points would be closer to the earth then the sun-earth ones.

-edit- ignore this post, SchizophrenicMC beat me to it.

Hmm... that kinda doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the F-35 with all of it's stealth characteristics be more complicated and maintenance intensive than the Typhoon? And I can't see how difficult it would be to turn the Typhoon into a bomb truck.

The F-35 was marketed over here as the new no-nonsense standard lightweight NATO fighter to replace the F16A/Bs. It isn't so much a maintenance issue but more of a cost issue. The F-35 was expected to have the same cheap operating costs like the F-16 and have low unit costs due to its large production run.

I don't know if it's hard to develop an attack version of the Typhoon but why redesign a 80 million euro fighter for an attack role when you can buy a plug-and-play 40 million euro bomb truck with stealth? (at least those were early estimates of the F-35 unit costs).

I'm not to sure if the F-35 will be so advanced compared to a Raptor or Typhoon. Why would congress opose exports of the F22 so strongly but allow those of the F-35 without issue if their performance is similar?

The Typhoon is much lighter due to it's use of those despised composites. Compare the wingspan, volume and internal fuel cappacity and you'll see its closer to an F15 then an F16. Note that composite panels can be replaced and composites do not suffer from metal fatigue. The life span of F-15 was cutshort by that problem. (7000 flight hours versus 9000 planned I think it was, not sure, don't have the data at hand.) So there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of composites.

As for replacing the Tornado: It will only replace the airdefence Tornados not the attack version. The Uk and Itally will buy F-35s for the attack task. Many of the smaller European countries (mainly F-16 users) decided to go for the F-35 as they considered the EF Typhoon to be to heavy and overcomplicated for their needs a desire a more multi-role aircraft. The Typhoon like pretty much any other fighter can be turned into a groundattack version but was first and foremost designed as a air-superiority craft (see F15E strike eagle). It's the best pure fighter that is for sale but that is a very small market.

The US never considered the Typhoon, that was a joke by FZero-one to someone who suggested using the F22 without the maintenance heavy stealth material, which leaves you roughly with a plane similar to a Typhoon.

<snip>

P.S. I've got nothing against the Typhoon as an aircraft, I'm just really frustrated that all the politics surrounding it are hindering the development, when old aircraft like F-15s can get AESA, and Block 60 F-16s can Supercruise, and just about every other fighter has some LO stylings--- what does the Typhoon have that makes it better than those fighters I wonder?

Fair question: the answer is that the Typhoon aims at a niche market: heavy air superiority fighters. Like the F-15 and the F-22 it has 2 engines, can carry a lot of internal fuel and support a heavy radar. Their avionics/software are purely geared toward it's air-to-air mission. These planes can fly caps for extended periods of time without refueling and their large wingsurface gives an advantage at high altitude combat.. The two engine design gives some redundancy when operating over water.

The F-16/F-35 are lightweight single-engined fighters. Designed to be massproduced light attack aircraft and frontline fighters. They are very good at air to air but are not specialised in it and lack the internal fuel for the long range missions/prolonged combat. Same goes for the F-18 and the Rafale who are dual engine but are low weight due to design limits for carrier operations.

So the Typhoon only has 2 real competitors (not counting the Russians). The F-22(not for sale) and F-15E derivatives. So which is better? The Typhoon is newer design, has super cruise and is more maneuvarable but the F-15 comes with a proven combat record and air-to-ground capability . Sofar the F-15 has been selected by Korea and Singapore, mainly due to it's better air-to-ground capability.

I think it's tellling that Japan considers the Typhoon and not the F-15X as a replacement for the F4s if they can't get the Raptor. Off course it's a political ploy to get F-22s but the seriousness of the threat leaves little doubt about the capabilities of the Typhoon.

While the mecha action has been top notch for a while, I haven't been to thrilled about the way the writers handle the characters.

I'm still very intereted on how they will wrap up the plot.

As for what I mean by character mishandeling well... Lets just look at what I would have imaged the characters would have to say about the last episode:

Louise Halevy: …oh god, I'm next right?... <pleads temporal insanity to escape death sentence>

Graham Aker: At least I am the official Char clone. Damn the script I’ll just grab the coolest mecha around and kick ass.

Setsna F Selei: Well. I’m the unofficial Sousuke Sagara clone. Instead of a feisty schoolgirl my love interest is an uptight Afgan princes that plays an organ so badly it makes even a Doors fan cringe. Oh my, that Gundam is starting to look hot.

Soma Peries: I’d rather die then to turn back into Allelujah’s moe doll again.

Saji Crossroad: I’m so emo…

Marina Ismail: I will audition for the part of idol singer in his upcoming Macross Frontier movie.

Since Bandai is the license holder for Macross Frontier, I'm wondering if they'll make an SDF Global to compete with Yamato.

Doubt it, Bandai and Yamato don't exactly have the same target audience.

Every fifteen-year-old boy in the world would heavily disagree with you.

(And anyway, I claim first rights, since I brought that video into this thread MONTHS ago.)

C'mon, man, watch this one, and then tell me Sabrina is worse:

However Alizee proves there is still a fifteen-year-old boy inside every man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICd_iHCDVog...feature=related

All this talking of French girls reminded me of this vid

I think the point is that pound for pound the Su-27 or Mig-29 have worn down the US's previous advantages. They have electronically scanned radars versus the F-15s mechanically scanned ones (a decent electronically scanned radar can have double the range of a mechanical counterpart) and rough parity in missile technology and kinematic performance. In a real war-time scenario an F-15 would likely have the numerical and command assets you mentioned, but those alone aren't going to give it the type superiority the USAF is used to having against newer foes, making a conflict significantly more costly.

I was under the impression a large number of F15s would be upgraded with active phased array radars?

I don't believe airframes make that much of difference anymore (unless they are stealthy ofc). It's information warfare that wins or loses air superiority. Hence my belief that pretty much any decent fighter would do well in a high-tech airforce assuming its equiped with the latest radar and missle tech. Maybe I have to much faith in command, control and communication in that respect.

That said -and slightly OT- any future conflict for any major airforce would be costly if they can't deal with ground based air-to-air fast and effectively. The Isreali's learned that the hard way in the Yom Kippur War. Stealth cracked Iraqi and Serb airdefences but will it work in the future? Imo that's a far greater threat to air superiority then Russian high spec fighters.

This isn't the end folks, the economy was fine but it got kicked in its nuts. Just like we all survive a kick in the nuts so will the US. It's just a kick, not cancer. Putting ice on your balls doesn't necessarily feel good either but it might help the swelling. In the end, all it takes is time. Again, tough times call for rational thought people, now's no time to grab your tin foil helmet and start expecting the end of days.

Well said.

So we are talking about a situation where the most advanced Migs and Sukhois engage the oldest USAF birds in uncontrolled airspace with equal supporting units? To make it more sporty they both don't use their AIM-120s or AA-12s but close up and go toe-to-toe with short range missles and cannons. Yes, I can see where the numbers are coming from.

I guess it's all in the game off course. To sell new material they need to make a look good to whatever is around now. Under realistic conditions I would find it hard to believe that F15Es and F16C Block 50s (or potential upgrades/new to build airframes to the level of F15Ks and F16E Block 60s) wont be able to take on the latest Russian designs. There are probably just as many if not more F15Es flying around then Su30/Su35/J11s.

Still, I find it amusing (and a little sad) that despite all the years of research and study and practice of economics, we are still no better off than we were say 50 or 100 years ago. I mean, as a science, economics has had very little results to show. Even in meteorology, they can now predict whether it will rain in the next day pretty accurately, but in economics you can't even tell what is going to happen tomorrow!

Nice try , you hippy

For those of us who don't understand all the economic gibberish, like me, the simplest way to put it is that the economy will always have it's ups and downs. A simple rule of thumb (that works for Asia and as someone has said, South America as well) is that this cycle takes about 10 years So now we are in a down period, but things will look up again (and of course, eventually crash again).

That's the one thing I really dislike about the financial sector. There is more techno-bable going around then on a Star Trek Convention. I started of as a student in Aerospace engineering before switching to economics when the whole Fokker collaps and aftermath killed the chance to work in the sector in my country. In engineering it's an art to keep things simple and clear. In finance it seems cool to make easy math look complicated by adding tons of abreviations and silly conventions. It's not exaclty helping in amking people understand what this crisis is all about or what can be done. I pity the people who have to explain to the politicians what has happened.

Yes, the SU27 and Mig 29 are also air superiority fighters. However the article puts a lightweight fighter like the MIG 29 over the F15 which seems silly to me. A heavy fighter like the F15 can support a heavier radar and carries more fuel so it would have serious advantage in BVR. Assuming the electronics of the Migs and Sukhois would be on par (which is doubtful). Also the chance of an F15 engaging a Mig29 or Sukhoi without AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call, tankers etc seems unlikely. Making the less then 1:1 ratio unlikely.

If the article refers to dog fight skills then it makes no sense. No way a F22 would be able to go 30:1 against Mig29s in dogfights. To much relies on pilot skills and its mainly intended for BVR.

That article seems a tad irrealistic. I mean F15s as a pure air superiority fighter having a loss ratio to Su27/Mig29s of more then 1:1? Doubtful statement at best.

Anyones guess what will happen but with the JSF being a wildcard I doubt they will cancel the F22 rightaway. The airforce could opt for some latest versions of the F15/F16s as a stopgap measure and a minimum number of F22s to keep the production line open to buy time (and money).

As for collections and the economy - to sum up and get back on track:

I think that the fact that we even HAVE collections is a testimony to the strength of our economies - despite these troubles. If you think about it - these are total "unnecessary" luxuries. Or - at best (which is how I think of them) - they are expressions of appreciation for a certain artistic spirit. It's kind of like having busts of the David and other famous statues in your palace or something...

I treat anime and the whole hobby industry as a form of art and culture - a very unique one. Like all art and culture- it has its' crass and kiche sides - but also there is much beauty - technical and aesthetic to it. And it adds happiness to life in many ways.

Economic downturns always suck - no matter what the theory and no matter what benefits might follow them.

Pete

Thank you for the discussion. This part I can fully agree with -off course-. Anime and hobbies in general are part of the nicer things in life. Unnecessary maybe from a rational perspective but definitly food for the soul.

It's amazing how economists or people who think they understand economics can always come up with an explanation after the fact but cannot predict what will happen--which is what their models are supposed to do.

But I agree with you Bri-- "The only source of economic growth is the human mind" -- and this is, in fact one of the biggest problems. Because most economic growth nowadays is, in fact, imaginary (and has no real value), we have things like the current recession.

Economics is like meteorology in that respect. Meteorologists can predict the weather a few days in advance, but they can't tell you if it will rain on 12 october 2013 in Amsterdam, New York or Tokyo. There are to many unknown variables involved that will affect the model. It's not uncommon for mathmaticians and physicists who work on meteological models to work on economic models aswell.

With all due respect, I disagree. The world economy was over-heating. <snip>

"Stimulus" and Keynesian spending and taxing have been the norm for the last 20 years; largely financed by the US selling T-bills to China, Japan and other countries willing to buy them and largely hoping to prop up their export economies by doing so.

Every time the market tried to self correct - the Federal Reserve and central bankers would step in to blow more air into the bubble.

The current liquidity failure is a normal, healthy reaction to a situation wherein the economy is artificially over-extended.

The fall in consumer spending and confidence is also healthy and good.

If I am right that capital accumulation leads to growth in the long term - which you yourself admit - then please do tell me when it is ok for people and businesses to start saving? When does the "long term" finally start? Because for the last 20 years we've had "short term" (aka short sighted) policies which boiled down to "spend and inflate."

I'm sorry but we are talking about two different things here. First: the world economy was not overheating in 2008. Inflation was not out of control nor were unemployement levels below the NAIRU, which are the signs of economic overheating. Yes, there was a bubble in the late 90s but it slowly collapsed in the early 2000s and therewas a relativly mild recession. I can't give you the specifics of the US economy but Europe is already in the second cycle past that one.

Keynesian theory has been dead for over 2 decades: it suggests that there is a trade-off between inflation and employment that can be used to smooth out the bussiness cycle. This is proven to be false. The Monetarists proved that money has no inherent value ("money is a veil") and the trade-off does not exist. The Monetarist versus neo-Kenesian debate was finished in favour of the Monetarists.

The irony of the current crisis is that the rules the monetairists propossed to protect us from systemic risk failed. Mainly due to exessive risk taking by financial institutions. Reasons for that are legion: Return demands by investors, tax systems that make debt preferable over equitity, managers ignoring safety regulations etc.

There is only the now. So the short term and long term are now aswell. It is just a way to look at problems from different perspectives. The only source of economic growth is the human mind: technology and innovation are the true engines. Captial and labour are in limited supply, human imagination is unlimited. For more information check out growth models by Solow. It the basis for most modern economic thinking.

Note: the USA is the exception in the world in the area that it does not need to save and can rely almost completly on external savings. The reason is that the US economy is the most competative in the world and still gives the highest return on investment and the dollar is accepted as a reserve currency. Don't really want to get into the details as it gets quite far off topic but for more information check on Krugmans works.

This is the Keynesian explanation of business cycles.

<snip>

This just isn't how a healthy economy works.

Agreed, and to quote Keynes: "in the long term we are all dead". Same goes for his theory.

Yes; this reminds me of Paul Krugman's contention that in the macro-world, it's really not possible to talk about profit and loss since (in macro terms) all spending done in an economy is also a "gain" - but to me, this is yet another reason why macro-economics as a seperate discipline makes little sense and is pre-occupied with abstractions like "aggregates" far too much.

This statement doesn't make sense. Projects undertaken with a negative Net Present Value will just destroy value and not be in anyones gain. Krugman is a big name in the exchange rate field, sounds strange he would state such a thing in this context.

The real problem that you don't seem to touch upon is the fact that we have fractional reserve banking. Banks do NOT "loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits." It would be great if they did.

In reality, however, our fractional reserve system has banks loaning money they DO NOT HAVE, but which the central bank magically creates out of thin air by printing it up or by selling IOUs in the form of Treasury bills and the like.

Our banking system - I am sorry to say - is a ponzy scheme. A pyramid scheme - and at the base of the pyramid are government central banks.

This problem is compounded by a fiat currency monetary system where governments have a monopoly on the creation of money and can set its' value at whim - or at least try to.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Financial institutions create money, not (just) the central bank. The central bank sets the interest rates for which banks can borrow from the central bank. Banks themselves can loan and borrow funds on the interbank market. Money creation happens because banks to not have to keep a 1:1 ratio of deposits versus loans but a 1:12 (roughly) one. The law of large numbers and the interbank market make it that banks don't fail when there is a so-called bank run. What happened in the last decade is that mortgages (and other financial derivatives) were taken of the bank balance and put in special companies that trade on the financial markets but are not banks. These companies were not bound by the 1:12 rule and this is where the problem lies. When they started to collect bad debt they dragged their investors (mainly banks, insurance, pension funds etc) down with them. (International) Government regulations could not keep up with reality.

The solution is at least to return to a gold standard so that politicians can't play with our money every time they want to win an election and - AT LEAST to bring some democratic control over central banks. I would personally not mind seeing them abolished, but if we have to have them - then couldn't they, as government institutions in democracies at least ...you know - allow audits? Couldn't they be subject to the same democratic controls that other government institutions are subject to?

The gold standard would only remove exchange rates. Money is neutral remember. The Monetarists fought heavily for an independant Central Bank. Who is acting Keynesian now Most Central Banks are under democratic control. The FED is accountable to congress but not to the administration.

These are some examples of where I do not agree with the Keynesian model.

Actually the problem is the government stimulus packages - which are nothing new - governments have been trying to "stimulate" people for decades now, and they've "stimulated" us all into reckles debt and bankrupcy.

They should just leave people alone to do as they please with their money.

You make it sound as though people wouldn't even want to go on a date with a cute girl unless the government stimulated them. That's not how people function - thankfully

Stimulus packages are there to easy the pain of the worst fall out. It's social policy to prevent public unrest. No sane economist will state that Keynesian stimuli should be used to kick start the economy. It's only to ease the pain and give people time to get back on their feet. To use your analogy: You'd still want to go out on a date with a cute girl, but if there were few girls around and the government would give you a ticket for a beach holiday in Florida during spring break qith a few dozen college girls...well I seem to be thinking off rabbits now

It is an even bigger misconception to think that we can speak of "economic theory" as though there was only ONE. The one you are presenting is a form of Keynesianism, modeled after John Maynard Keynes. It is one of the two dominant majority views in modern economics - the other being monetarism in the vein of the Chicago school.

I personally am closer in my views to the monetarist view than to the Keynesian view, but also have much respect and fondness for the Austrian school of economics - people like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.

In any event - there is not just one "economic theory" - and I do think that this crisis has revealed (not for the first time) the short comings and weaknesses of Keynesian economic theory. Pete

Afaik the word theory has can be used for one or multiple. This crisis is not a mystery of any sort and can be easily explained even by text book knowledge. It's very similar to what happened to Japan in the 80s hence the fear for debt-deflation spirals who are far worse then adding some demand stimuli. Keynes vs Monetarists is no longer relevant. Current research focusses on behavioural theory and growth theory. The former is based on the works of Nash and the overlap of economics and psychology. The latter on Solow growth models.

Jenius explained things very well. Not much to add there. As for the comments. Well people get worked up about things that affect their lives but can't control. It's human and if venting about it makes them feel better go ahead. Keeping the tone civilised is apreciated however.

For VTF-1 (and those with an interest in the background of the crisis): You are right that savings( aka investments) are the key to capital accumulation and economic growth in the long term. The world economy was not overheating however. The current recession is caused by liquidity problems and falling demand due to lower consumer confidance, which is another thing entirely.

The problem in laymans terms: Firms(even healthy ones) get in to trouble as they can't get credit to deal with uneven cash flows (stock versus sales etc). Result: firms try to save money by shedding staff and minimise current expenses. Not only people who get layed off but everyone who fears for their job reduces expenditure and will not buy anything expensive (cars, houses, consumer electronics vacations etc). So both firms and people lower consumption. Result less demand for goods and services and we get a negative spiral.

Banks loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits. We call this the financial transformation function (this is the reason why savings equal investment and is essential for any type of economy to grow, free market or not). The systemic collaps of the financial sector has caused this function to halt and this is what is hurting employment and families. If we can get banks to start lending again (altough more carefull to whom) we can at least solve the liquidity problem. For this peoples cash is needed in the banks. This is not done out of a sense of duty or patriotism but personal gain for the saver (cash versus interest on depositos). Thats why low interest rates are so nasty atm as people don't feel any disadvantage of holding cash. This is similar to what happened to Japan in the late 80s.

The other part of the problem is the low consumer confidance. Fear for unemployment make it that people don't dare to spend. This is the psychological factor and the hardest to fight. Governments have put together those stimulus packages to ease the pain of falling demand and hopefully people will have a more optimistic outlook on their prospects in the near future.

It's a misconception to think that economic theory was proven wrong in this crisis. It works fine to explain what happened and what the effects will be. Compare it to an engineer in the car industry. He can predict what the results/damage will be when a person crashes a car at 100 mph. It's just that he can't predict when a driver will park his car against a wall in real life.

Don't think 50k yen is that bad of a price for an item that will be the center piece of most Macross collections. As previous posters said, the exchange rate will make it a bargain or not. Yes, its a load of money to spend on a toy but everything is relative. I know comic collectors who will spend double or more without blinking on commision pieces. And don't get me started on other hobbies like boats or classic cars.

I'm an economist and work as a research assistant at a Dutch University. The crisis doesn't really affect me or my collection much. Few years ago I decided not to buy a house but to rent a place and save the difference in a savings account. Dutch house prices have been obscene for the last decade or so and I did not want to leverage myself for house that in my opinion was highly overvalued (house prices over here and are two to five times the replacment value, mainly due to high land prices). In hindsight I am glad I did, as house prices are slowly but steadily dropping, evaporating the underlying asset value of the mortages.

I hope economic recovery will be fast but this is not a normal bust after a boom period. It's a collapse of the financial system due to contagion by bad sectors who had been taking excessive risk. If the banking sectors recover fast enough we may see the end of the crisis soon. However at the moment the low interest rates have me worried. The interbank-market is pretty much dead and cash is turning into a perfect sustitute for bank deposits, adding to the credit cruch. Hopefully the stimulus package and devaluation of the dollar will increase inflation and exports both of which will increase private spending. Like religion an economy runs on faith, only difference is that you want people to spend instead of pray.

Try out Bounen No Xamdou next. Similar to Eureka 7 and made by Bones....though i personally feel it fell short on what it could've been and did not live up to the expectations that Eureka 7 set.

Checked out the discription on ANN. Certainly looks interesting. For that matter seems Bones has done a few more anime that seem worth watching. Haven't seen Rahxephon and FMA yet either. Never realised these were all from the same studios. Last week I was running out of things to watch, but now...heh

Alternate ending? nice, I'll be sure to check the local store for the manga. Thanks for the tip.

I'm planning to do a Crest of the Star/Banner of the Star marathon next week.

Can't go wrong with that, some of the best character driven sci-fi out there imo

Overman King Gainer certainly looks interesting, might try that one