How are they going to dispose of those things after they are done? Can they be just flushed down?

from the MSDA sheet
Waste treatment
Waste Disposal Methods
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
Contaminated packaging
Empty containers should be taken to an approved waste handling site for recycling or disposal

http://www.qtstools.com/TechInfo/MSDS_795-H.pdf

Although it is comedy and my critique is not meant in any serious way, I think some of those pitfalls are not about adulthood, but just being a bit too bourgeois. Vegetable spiralizers probably are not the hallmark of being an adult, but more of having too much disposable income and being part of a consumerist mindset.

That's brilliant! Raise your daughters as gay, and never worry about having to dispose of the boyfriend's body!

Looking at that it's really easy to see how shitty the four new movies are compared to the originals. All that technology at their disposal, but without the vision and creativity of top-notch talent it doesn't matter.

They tried improving the plastic bag situation in the state where I live. Failed miserably.

They created a law that would not allow shops to give away disposable plastic bags.

So now the stores simply charge you for slightly thicker "reusable" plastic bags..... and of course now we have a thicker plastic rubbish, since most people have never learnt to be prepared.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

The legal responsibility of Apple (along with all publicly traded corporations) is to maximize shareholder profits. If they act against those interests, then their management is liable, acting illegally, and susceptible to lawsuits.

That's the law and their "patriotic" duty. Their manufacture of popular products is the way they have gone about doing just that.

In China, by contrast, Apple has no problem unlocking phones or complying with the Chinese rulers' requests. But in the US, why should they comply if they don't have to (and it's their legal duty to act on behalf of their stock holders' interests)? They have already said that if they lose their legal battle, they will comply with whatever legal requirements. It would still be their duty to use any and all loopholes at their disposal to act in service to their shareholders' best interests, however they see fit. It's the State's problem to deal with such muddles, if the law is what it is. Not Apple's.

It's the same as with Apple's avoidance of taxes. Apple has the legal (and ethical) responsibility to avoid paying taxes however the law permits them to do so, and to not pay unnecessarily more than they have to do so. Again, they have that legal responsibility towards their shareholders.

The tax code, for anyone who looks it, is completely arbitrary. There is no "right" amount or percentage that anyone person or group "should" be taxed or is "fair" to be taxed. Such amounts are arbitrary and certainly not determined by some user's preference on videosift. (This is why videosift has no say in how much anyone pays in taxes or what the tax code actually says.)

This isnt just the US economy. The Digital World will make many jobs obsolete everywhere. In a few decades there will be not enough manual work left to make a living for everyone.

Which means ... there will not be enough spending capacity left to generate enough revenue for a lot of industries. When no one has work, no one has the money to buy stupid crap they really dont need, so entire industries will go bancrupt which means more jobless people which means even less disposable income.

In Davos, on the World Economic Forum, for the first time there was a decent and serious discussion about possible solutions for this developement. From heavily investing in education for future generations to different models of basic income.

"They" know that something has to be done. There has to be some form of wealth distribution or everything will go up in flames.

@Bernie:
As a European Bernie isnt THAT much a leftie. He wont win the nomination, but the more he gives Hillary a hard time, the more influence he will have on her future social and economic policies. May be he'll even end up in her government.

This one guy had a Banana at his disposal and he did nothing! He could've ended this fight early if he just had the guts to do what's necessary.
Use the Banana, dude!

This seems pretty naive to me. Isis has killed thousands of people, according to a CNN report:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

According to the syrian observatory for human rights, Isis has murdered 3200 people in Syria alone. Other reports place the death toll in Iraq at 7000 people.

They have millions of dollars at their disposal, they are allied with Boko Haram, and they not just in Iraq and Syria but all over North Africa.

To say they are weak is naive..weak organizations don't have millions of dollars, territory all over the middle east and murder thousands of people.

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.