I've recently read Catcher in the Rye. It wasn't a favorite. Towers of Midnight was enjoyable. I have been paging through Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary recently. I'm busy with The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and am going to start a Dutch book tomorrow. Either Kort Amerikaans or Kowerda's Kind, probably. I still need to read Les Mis. It's on my list. As for Dickens, I like some of his books, and detest others. Or at least, I did in high school. Poe and Twain are always readable.

I finished Lord of the Flies recently, and didn't like it very much. It was a symbolism overload.

Recently finished

Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Can somebody please explain why this is considered one of the greatest novels of all-time and not merely 900 pages of horror?

started reading the Koran. it's... different.

@the master warrior
i've read that book about 3 or 4 times for different classes as well as did a few reports on it and its really not that bad. there is alot of symbolism in it but even if you dont think about the symbolism its still kinda cool to see how kids would react in that kind of situation.

historical determinism, nothing like putting the term "historical" in something any historian worth his salt would understand as rubish

The Egyptian. Some might know it by the name of Sinuhe the Egyptian etc.
I've read it once a couple of years back and still like it.

@ jmeyersd -- Give me a break. By webDiplomacy Forum standards, my grammar is pretty good.

@ maltizok -- It was definitely well written, and I can see why it is such a successful book, but (symbolism aside) it's not my kind of survival book.

<Irrelevant side note> The dogfight scene is a little unrealistic.

i agree, the symbolism is kind of overpowering and the dogfight scene is kind of pointless to me

I'm pretty sure no aircraft in 1957 would be fighting at ten miles' height (52,800 feet). That's really high. To put it in perspective, commercial airliners rarely fly above 38,000 feet. Also, how can a dead pilot both kick away an ejection seat and pull a ripcord? I suppose it is possible that his oxygen gear was damaged during the fight, and he could have ejected at that height, panicked, got rid of the seat, pulled the cord before he realized how high he was, and asphyxiated before he got even close to breathable air.

I'm kind of partial to Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, although I did enjoy Lord of the Flies.

yeah but i just like how it shows things from the kids point of view and how they would react to that situation and how human nature would inevitably take over

Like I said, not my kind of book.

As far as the pilot being dead, the plane exploded according to the passage, so shrapnel or, as you say, damaged gear could have killed him. He may even have been shot.

But yeah, considering the F-16 tops out around 13 miles, I'd say it wasn't likely a dog fight during 1957 would be at 10 miles up.

The Delta Dart, introduced in 1959, had a service ceiling of 57,000 ft. Also, at the risk of blowing your mind, it could go twice the speed of sound and was armed with an air-to-air nuclear missle! For taking out an entire squadron of bombers at the push of a button. Nowadays its awesome to have an ipod.

The Delta Dagger, introduced in 1956, could also *just* fit the bill.

@ TMW
my "recently finished" was not an attack on anyone's grammar. it was merely the beginning of my post, which, for some reason, posted before i could finish.

The F-104 Starfighter introduced in 1954 had service ceiling was 71,000 ft. Several fighters could fly and fight at 57,000 feet by the 1950's, including the MiG-21 at 62,000 ft.

@ jmeyersd -- Sorry.

@ warsprite -- Yeah, but realistically, dogfights don't happen that high. Aircraft don't operate very well close to their service ceiling. At altitudes like that, your airplane would have a much-increased stall speed, your engine(s) would not have much power because 52,800 feet is well past the critical point of any jet engine I'm aware of. Your airplane would not nearly be as maneuverable as it would be at lower altitudes, as a result of lower air pressure, making dogfighting nearly impossible. The only aircraft that operate that high are recon birds or bombers. "Service Ceiling" is the highest possible altitude a given aircraft can operate at under regular circumstances (i.e. no enhancements to the airframe or cabin).

If you took the time to read all of that, thanks.

"historical determinism, nothing like putting the term "historical" in something any historian worth his salt would understand as rubish"

@SantaClausowitz, by rubbish, I assume you are referring to determinism? Are you arguing that no historian "worth his salt" is a determinist?
Would it change things if I used the term "historical probablism" (is probablism a world? Is there a better word?). That is history is at times guided by probably outcomes. For example in the book "Why the West Rules for Now" by Ian Morris he argues that by that the 15th century it was extremely probable that the West would eventually overtake the East (mainly China), even though at that point in history they still lagged behind in his "social development index"?
(The "index of social development", comprises energy capture, organisation/urbanisation, information technology, and war-making capacity.)

@TMW True most dog fights do happen at altitudes 50,000 and less, but "not nearly impossible". They can and have often started at higher altitudes with the maneuvering eating the speed and attitude bring the fight ever lower. Also aircraft like the F-104 with a high weight to thrust ratio and poor turning rate did better at the high speed and high altitude dash and slash tactics. Not all dogfights are the furball type.

@ warsprite

Dogfights that high are nearly impossible. The stall speed would be so inflated that any radical turn (the kind almost always required) during a dogfight would stall the aircraft. And, back in the 50's, BVR (beyond visual range) dogfighting was nearly unheard of, because long-range radar-guided missiles were horribly unreliable, and short-range heat seekers were only used at short ranges, usually in a turning fight (even those weren't much more reliable) So, back in the 50's, almost any conceivable dogfight would involve radical maneuvers and close range weapons, which equals furball. Realistically, an F-104 would not be used over the middle of the Pacific, due to insufficient range. It would probably be between a western carrier-based fighter, like an F-8 Crusader, and a land-based Soviet fighter (like a MiG-17) I can't think of any other aircraft from the time period that would utilize dash-and-slash.

Also the F-104 didn't go into service until *after* Lord of the Flies was published.

Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army

By Jeremy Scahill

The Rational Optimist, by Matt Ridley

Just finished The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris

I have read the Lord of the Flies at least a few times (but many years ago), but I do not remember a dog fight scene. I remembers ome kids on an Island - shipwrecked I think. What is the dogfight you speak of?

Okay, I see now, when the pilot parachutes at the end it mentions a dogfight "ten miles high". I forgot all about that.

Spyman, I read George Friedman's free subscription STRATFOR publications often. His company's coverage of Egypt and other issues are above average, but he can still say some outlandish things.

One of them would be Poland being a superpower. This would be impossible being stuck between Germany and Russia on the North European Plain unless they expand hugely in every direction. Perhaps he means a superpower in another sense such as economical? I'd also see Brazil as more likely than Mexico. Most interested...

Smiley what do you think of The Rational Optimist? I just looked it up on on Amazon and it looks like the sort of book I would find interesting. I notice in the "customers who viewed this also viewed..." section on Amazon that a book I just finished is listed, "Why the West Rules For Now". I like books the merge ideas from various academic disciplines into a "why we are we the way we are" narrative. Other books in this vein included Guns Germs and Steel (brilliant) and The Lucifer Principle (interesting but perhaps not as credible).