4a 101 Relations: Fill & Download for Free

The initial aerodynamics were very squirrelly, resulting in the plane’s final shape. Original experimental designs borrowed heavily from the F-101 Voodoo; if you compare the F-101 to the F3H mockup below that would become the F-4, you can see the direct lineage. However, wind-tunnel testing showed the original Phantom to be very laterally unstable (prone to “slips” or “skids”). It was also hard to handle at high angles of attack. These issues were solved by adding dihedral to the wings and anhedral to the elevators; however, to avoid having to re-engineer the complex and very expensive titanium central fuselage, only the wingtips were dihedraled, giving the Phantom its unique wing planform. These tweaks weren’t bad, per se, but they reflect the plane’s development and history as a series of bolt-on modifications to what should have been a very simple, single-minded fighter design.It was designed for a war that never happened. U.S. strategists, after Korea, believed that the next big war would be a nuclear WWIII against the Soviet Union directly. It would be fought primarily in the air, between nuclear bombers and their escorts on the offensive side, against long-range interceptors on defense (ICBMs didn’t become the dominant threat for either side until the mid-70s). In both situations, the fighter design most useful overall would be a long-range, high-altitude, supersonic heavy fighter loaded to the teeth with medium-range missiles. The Century Series fighters of the “second generation”, followed by the early Tri-Service-era fighters in the “third generation”, were all based on this model; be as fast as possible, fly as high as possible, as far out as possible, carrying as many missiles as you can point and shoot between the maximum and minimum engagement ranges of that missile. When you’re empty, bug out home, reload, refuel, and hope your squadronmates haven’t let a bomber through by the time you get back in the air.That war, thankfully, never came to pass. Instead, we basically got another Korea, where both the Air Force and Navy found themselves back at low-altitude running air support and tactical bombing, while being targeted from underneath by the previous generation of Soviet day fighters, which though slower and more primitively armed were still very agile and a definite threat to the speed-minded Phantoms when they closed to visual range.It was the victim of political decisions about military budgets and standardization. Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense for the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, had little patience for arguments that the various branches of the U.S. Armed Forces had vastly different design and operational requirements for their materiel. They all needed a fighter; well, the Phantom was a fighter, the best we’d developed to date, and it certainly cost the Navy enough. His staff stressed program consolidation as a cost-reduction measure, and among those programs, the Navy’s F-4 Phantom was ordered into service with the Air Force and Marine Corps with relatively minor changes, cancelling design programs those services had in the pipeline. The Phantom did the job, don’t get me wrong, but its use in Vietnam highlighted several key weaknesses of a one-size-fits-all design both regarding mission profiles and service branches. It was too fast for close air support, too heavy for STOL operations from forward bases the Marines wanted to use, and the lack of a gun made it vulnerable in CAP missions once it had expended its Sidewinders. This revelation ultimately led to the separate Navy VFAX and Air Force VFX design competitions to replace the Phantom in the air-to-air role for each branch (producing the F-14 and F-15 respectively), and the Air Force’s A-X program which would produce the A-10.It was an interceptor first and everything else second. There were no fewer than 8 major combat variants of the Phantom used by the US (and more like 10 once you add in the N and S variants which were created by upgrading existing Bs and Cs), all of which tacked on some new gadget that allowed the airframe to do something it was never designed to do in the first place. The F4H-1F (the pre-Tri-Service designation for the F-4A) was a carrier-based fighter, which at the time meant its two main missions were carrier defense and attack escort. The B variant added ground attack capability. The Air Force’s C through E variants were more capable but still based on this heavy, rugged Navy-oriented design.Avionics in this era were increasing rather than reducing pilot workload. The F-4 organically developed into the predecessor of what we now call the “multirole fighter”. Succinctly stated, the U.S. realized that when you only have 50 or 60 planes on a carrier, there’s not much room for uni-taskers. All the additional capabilities of the aircraft such as radar and targeting were more or less “bolted on” to an already complex control system, increasing pilot workload and decreasing situational awareness, to the point that the pilots of the day would often spend the first 10 minutes of a mission turning off everything they didn’t need. The addition of the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer), affectionately the GIB (Guy In Back), was primarily to give the pilot an extra set of hands and eyes, taking over all the tasks not directly related to flying the plane and keeping it on-mission. Avionics would be the primary improvement in the fourth-generation designs beginning with the F-14 and F-15 (which among other things were somewhat simpler because they returned to a single-minded mission profile of “air superiority”; the F-16 and F/A-18 were the first real success stories of jets designed from the ground up as multirole fighters).In short, it was a good plane, one of the U.S.’s first real multitaskers since the P-51. But it was never intended to do all the things it did. It was intended to escort B-52s, intercept Bears, and maybe drop a bomb or two of its own when a nuke wasn’t called for and an F-105 “Thud” wasn’t available. Its versatility ultimately defined the job definition of the “multirole fighters” that replaced it, the F-16 and F/A-18. But, when you see what those planes can do with the multi-mission profile, the advantages of designing a plane to do those things from the ground up becomes obvious, as does having a few unitaskers like the F-15 and A-10 that do one thing and do it really well.

I’m not sure I see that, but I do a rather concerning passage here from the text of the billREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT(Below is an excerpt from page 67 of the attached PDF)Sec. 356z.4a. Coverage for abortion.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no individual or group policy of accident and health insurance that provides pregnancy related benefits may be issued, amended, delivered, or renewed in this State after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly unless the policy provides a covered person with coverage for abortion care.(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a policy subject to this Section shall not impose a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on the coverage provided.(c) Except as otherwise authorized under this Section, a policy shall not impose any restrictions or delays on the coverage required under this Section.(d) This Section does not, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 18054(a)(6), apply to a multistate plan that does not provide coverage for abortion.(e) If the Department concludes that enforcement of this Section may adversely affect the allocation of federal funds to this State, the Department may grant an exemption to the requirements, but only to the minimum extent necessary to ensure the continued receipt of federal funds.Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this basically require all plans to fully fund abortions through largely disallowing any out of pocket payments for it in any way?That interpretation may be supported by the elimination of a piece of insurance law that guaranteed insurance companies would (page 66)If so, holy moly Jesus Christ, prochoicers in Illinois! My actually consistently life-saving Humira and colonoscopies related to my Crohn’s disease, a few EKGs related to ensuring my heart was absolutely fine after my hole in my heart was fixed, and my mom’s thyroid medicine still all have a damn copay/deductible and the like! Not to mention when my family members have had to be in the hospital for all sorts of reasons, where quite possibly they could have died without the relevant medical care received - those cost us an arm and a leg and always helped us max out our deductible!That’s with my dad having one of the best insurance company policies he could find due to knowing how important our health is!How on earth does socioeconomically based abortion deserve more funding than my family’s actual health needs? Answer me this!!!Furthermore, it could compromise record keeping of abortions through this section (page 101–102 of the PDF)Section 910-55. The Vital Records Act is amended by changing Section 1 as follows: (410 ILCS 535/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 73-1)Sec. 1. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:(1) "Vital records" means records of births, deaths, fetal deaths, marriages, dissolution of marriages, and data related thereto.(2) "System of vital records" includes the registration, collection, preservation, amendment, and certification of vital records, and activities related thereto.(3) "Filing" means the presentation of a certificate, report, or other record provided for in this Act, of a birth, death, fetal death, adoption, marriage, or dissolution of marriage, for registration by the Office of Vital Records.(4) "Registration" means the acceptance by the Office of Vital Records and the incorporation in its official records of certificates, reports, or other records provided for in this Act, of births, deaths, fetal deaths, adoptions, marriages, or dissolution of marriages.(5) "Live birth" means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which after such separation breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.(6) "Fetal death" means death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from the uterus its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, and which is not due to an abortion as defined in Section 10 of the Reproductive Health Act. ; The the death is indicated by the fact that after such separation the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.It also exempts abortion-related records from the Freedom of Information Act of the state (page 43 to page 49).Together, that may be the closest to not allowing records of 911 calls from such recordsIt also happens to eliminate all regulation of abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers (page 57 to 60), which I could guess would possibly compromise some safety measures. Even more so if we saw abortion providers fail to care about the women patients over proper standards of care on their ownOverall, it is a very radically prochoice bill to my understanding, though admittedly I still don’t fully appreciate all its ramifications. So I wouldn’t be too surprised if I heard it allowed abortion clinics to do pretty much anything they used to not be allowed to do.

generally, the patient will be presenting with *at least* a significant fever (over 101*F or 38.3*C), malaise, pain and other symptoms which tell an experienced Clinician “Please pay attention to me!”sadly, as many Quorans have noted, that attention is all too often lacking.From that point:step one: is the patient’s problem related to an infection - yes/no?if no, stop. antibiotics will do no good. evaluate and treat as appropriate for diagnosis found after the history, physical, lab work and imaging studies are complete.if yes, step 2: is the infection likely bacterial or fungal, or is it a virus?if a virus, stop. antibiotics will do no good. skip to step 4 for consideration of admission.if bacterial or fungal, step 3: is the infection a superficial infection that will likely respond to basic hygiene and tincture of time - yes/no?if yes, then teach the appropriate techniques and have the patient back in 5–7 days if there is no improvement, or sooner if the condition worsens.if no, thenstep 4a: can a presumptive diagnosis of a specific organism or class of organisms be made?and step 4b: is the patient acutely ill enough to need to be hospitalized - yes/no?(I’ve spent hours thinking about how I used to run this algorithm - these two steps were usually paired in each case, and there is no really good way to think of them separately for me. )if both no, step 5a: reconsider the acuity of illness and the amount of support available at home. If b is still no and sufficient support at home available; collect cultures of wounds, pus, blood, urine, sputum or other body fluids as appropriate; pick a reasonable broad spectrum combination of antibiotics for initial treatment, starting with an IM or IV dose and continuing orally, and release the patient home for follow up in 12–48 hours or if worsens.if both yes, step 6a: collect cultures of wounds, pus, blood, urine, sputum or other body fluids as appropriate, admit the patient, and start the patient on the agent which is appropriate for the suspected organismif a yes and b no, step 5b: collect cultures of wounds, pus, blood, urine, sputum or other body fluids as appropriate, and start the patient on the agent which is appropriate for the suspected organism. and discharge the patient for follow up in 3–5 days, sooner if getting worse.if a no and b yes, step 6b: collect cultures of wounds, pus, blood, urine, sputum or other body fluids as appropriate, admit the patient, and start a protocol of broad spectrum, often high dose antibiotic or anti-fungals as indicated by the history, physical, initial lab work and radiographs.In all cases of significant viral infections, a similar pattern for steps 5 and would be expected if the viral infection was bad enough to warrant admission. Otherwise, consider outpatient therapy with oral antiviral agents.Step 7: after either step 5 or 6, revisit the treatment regimen as further test results are available to minimize the usage of powerful, toxic, broad spectrum agents, and improve both patient response and patient safety by using the most specific combination of agents for the organism found.whew! It has probably been almost a decade since I had to lay out my decision tree for treatment of such matters as an explanation of the Art of Medicine to a new student!If anyone else wishes to offer their algorithm for similar cases, it would be interesting to compare and contrast.