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.

You can call me an ass all you want, just don't take yourself too important. Your "punches" don't touch me the slightest. With "sad" I didn't mean myself but the fact that so many people are absolutely ignorant to the downsides of modern media.
I never wanted to say that I think there might be any physical dangers for the child coming from the screen, my thoughts were more in the direction LiquidAvatar mentioned.
And please excuse me if I apparently failed to explain what I meant without ambiguity, English isn't my native language.
I just wrote what I think about it and I'm well aware that my view on this matter won't find a majority. That doesn't make me automatically wrong though.
I'm very sorry I apparently upset some of you guys, but hey, that's the internet, right?

I love that app. The only downside is that I usually end up laughing so damn hard with whoever I'm doing it with that it completely screws up the effect every time.

For what it's worth, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, this app is called Face Swap Live, and it's only on iOS right now. There are a hundreds of Face Swap apps on Android and iOS store, but the "Live" version is the only correct one (others don't have the same functionality).

Speaking as someone who played since the original I completely get where you are coming from.

But, this is easily the most R6 a game has felt since raven shield and once you start to learn the maps and build up a team the planning stage kind of comes into it's own.

I know it's not the same as spending hours tweaking the plan alone (before watching your AI sqaud mess it up). But the tactical depth is very much still there.

Terrorist hunt on realistic difficulty is the equal of any challenge I had in the old R6's, more so really considering the destruction and tools available.

A game with a good team, scouting with drones and breach/sweeping together feels every bit as tense and cerebral as before IMHO.

The only big downside is you need other players, there is a lone wolf mode, but no AI teammates regrettably.

While the camera wouldn't get that kind of sound recording, you can easily record a piano like that with close micing. You stick the microphones inside the lid, down near the strings. It gives a very wide, expansive, soundstage. Here is an example of one kind of setup like that.

However it has a downside: It picks up more of the piano's noise, in particular hammer and pedal noise, as well as key noise. Those are the noises you hear, particularly when he starts working the pedals hard.

In terms of his key movements being sync'd to the music, they look sync'd to me. That kind of thing isn't that useful for evaluation because there are too many variables that can affect it:

1) The sync of your system. Your sound system and monitor have a delay to them. Depending on the difference in the delays, things can be a bit out of sync, perhaps noticeably so. Unless you have your system calibrated for it, which isn't likely on a computer.

2) Problems in the A/V sync in production. Something like this would probably be recorded with two devices: A hand held camera, and a dedicated recorder. The audio from the recorder would then need to be sync'd manually with the video. Depending on how accurate that is done, there can be some desync.

3) Sync issues in the video. I'm sure you've seen plenty of videos online with sync issues, various problems in encoding and streaming can cause them.


Not saying that this is real for sure, I don't know, just that I don't see or hear anything inconsistent.

Heh, no, I said we are capped at 5 KW/h input, our product midsummer is around 35-40 KW/h @ 8 cents per, or $2.80 paid to us (assuming no rain/clouds, winter is closer to 5-12 KW/h per day). Then from 5pm-about 6am, we buy energy back at 36 cents an hour. And as the wife and I are both working during the day, we use the bulk of our energy between 5-12pm, meaning any profit we make during the day is completely overwhelmed (eg. 20 KW/h @ 36 cents = $7.20). I live in Australia where the days of 45 cent feed in tariff are long gone (and further, it's a false economy where non solar users are subsidising that tariff for the few fortunate enough to take advantage of it).

Even with the 4 grand gov. rebate (my system ended up costing ~$12,000 AUD for 6KW), it's not likely to make the money back prior to the end of life for the panels (25 years) if electricity prices keep rising without the feed in keeping pace. Add a battery system so you can load shift from daily production to cover nightly usage (where the real cost kicks in) means that you'll be running at a significant loss over the same period, as you'll probably have to replace lead batteries at least twice over the life time of the panels. Even if hydrogen fuel cells or some form of Li Ion battery becomes far cheaper, it's still loss making for the owner, subsidised to boot and the cheap manufacturing is because the panels are produced in China where even the most efficient of factories are utilising enormous amounts of carbon resourced energy, materials that are carbon intensive to make and manufacture etc.

I'm not saying solar is bad because I want it to be, I'm saying it's very easy to sell to people to make them feel better, but like any "too good to be true" story, there's a hell of a lot more beneath the surface than most people realise.

As for nuke and hydro, yep, they have downsides, but they are the most effective sources of energy in terms of return on energy invested that we have available to us at the moment. And the damage of hydro, if it replaces coal burning facilities, might be significantly less than the damage from allowing GW to continue to run unabated.

The rumor is they're waiting out for an exclusive or timed exclusive offer from MS or Sony before announcing console release. Not that I care, I'll be playing on PC in Nov!

Looks good. Procedural level design is great news, the downside of the first was at some point you knew the layout of all the maps and it was predictable as hell. I hope they bring back some of the complexity that was missing from the recent reboot (e.g. multiple bases, base grid structure), or at least add new depth.

Two things, no, actually three:
1. To answer your question directly: because letting LGBT people have these rights has no negative effects for society and requires very little effort. There are no measurable downsides here.
What's supposed to happen? Tell me what the negative effects will be. God's gonna make a pouty face and floods the earth again?
Another thing is, how is it the government's business who you can marry? Why should they get to decide that you can't marry shinyblurry if you really want to? Are you that fond of government intrusion in your life?
2. Capitulate? Are you at war with the gays? Did they stick a flag in your ass and declared it their territoty? Is it really an us vs. them situation? Are you sure you are not actually the problem?
You can only capitulate to an adversary. How are the homosexuals harming you? Are they taking anything away? Are they threatening you? Fact is, you are the one who wants to deny right and limit other people's freedom to be left the fuck alone. You're the agressor here. If you would stop that behaviour, nobody would give a fuck about you.
Why should I, who doesn't care what unknown gay people do, and we, who want them to have their rights, capitulate to agressors like you, who insist on regulating nobody's and especially not their own business? Why can't you leave the homosexuals alone? What's your fixation here?
3. Stop it with that "evolutionary dead end" crap! Every marriage with someone who is unable or unwilling to have kids is according to your definition one. Are you really willing to argue that people who can't procreate shouldn't marry? Are you going to tell every woman over 50 they can't (re)marry? Are you willing to walk up to a soldier who got his nuts blown off in Iraq that he can never ever marry the woman who doesn't care about his lack off balls? I'd love to see that. And what his buddies will do to you. And his wife.

Fact is, you don't like homosexuals. I don't know why but I do know that more and more people don't care about them. We're past the tipping point. That's why you feel it's "capitulating", because you know you're the minority now and your hatred and abuse won't be tolerated for long anymore. That's what you loose, the right to treat other's like shit. You can't kick that dog no more because it found the courage to bite back and we took away your ability to go old yeller on his ass. Must make you mad, foaming at the mouth mad.

Very interesting...

I'm one of those people who is highly sensitive to perfumes / scents, which is sometimes called "multiple chemical sensitivity". I know that it isn't technically an "allergy", but other than that I honestly have no idea whether this whole thing is psychosomatic (all in my head), "real" but with a lot of additional input from mental/emotional states, completely real and tied in some way to the smells themselves, or completely real and tied in some way to the actual "chemicals" (in a chemistry sense) in the air. All I know is that there are a LOT of triggers for me where I can get one small whiff of something and know that I'm going to get a pounding headache.

Aggravation with that has often caused me to wonder if it would be possible to surgically or pharmacologically destroy or impair my olfaction senses, like what happened to the woman in the video, and cure the headache triggers. If the smells themselves are the triggers, it seems like that could work. If it is largely or completely psychosomatic, it could still work because I wouldn't know that I was being exposed to the smell triggers; one thing that I've considered is that I also get very angry if I'm in a private place like my home or otherwise trying to avoid triggers and somebody wanders in wearing some nasty shit and compromises the integrity of my safe zone. In public I know that I can't control what other people wear so I just try to get away very quickly from trigger smells, but in my own home I get ultra pissed if somebody comes in and stinks it up. I have wondered if that anger exacerbates or maybe even in some cases is the actual primary source of the headache symptoms. But anyway, even if that was the case, being able to cap or cut off my sense of smell would solve the problem.

The only way that the problem could persist AFTER surgically eliminating my sense of smell would be if the reaction is really to the chemicals themselves in the air. And then, that would be worse because I wouldn't have the warning system of smell telling me to get the hell away from perfume counters, ladies wearing the stuff, dudebros wearing shit like Axe, etc.

All in all, I don't actually think it would be worth the downsides. BUT, I must say I've really wondered about it when I've got a pounding headache after simply walking by somebody wearing perfume in line at a grocery store or whatever...

EDIT: I answered my own question about this. Apparently "US Citizens Living Abroad" is one of the exemptions to the mandate/rule. So nevermind the below.

As a US citizen living outside the US, one thing that concerns me is the health care / insurance mandate and penalties.

I live in Thailand, and have health insurance through the nearly-universal Thai healthcare system because I have a job that pays in to it. On top of that, I have insurance through a private insurer based in the UK.

The Thai system is really good. A few years ago, I had something like 5 episodes of tonsillitis in one year, and my doc told me that I should consider getting a tonsillectomy. I opted to go for it, and the Thai govt. insurance paid for the entire operation except for about $30 that I had to pay myself because I opted to stay in a private, air conditioned room for a recovery night instead of the busy public ward. Other than that, it cost me absolutely nothing.

The private insurer I have is for any travel outside Thailand and backup purposes; it has a higher max payout and would allow for more optional treatments to major things. I haven't made any claims against it so far, but it is a nice safety net. The only downside to it is that it works "around the world*" (*except in the US, because that system is so f*&^ed up they wash their hands of it). So, on the rare occasions where I make a trip back home to the US, I'm technically uninsured.

Signing up for Obamacare would be pretty pointless for me. I've been in Thailand for about 10 years, and during that time I've been back to the US only twice for a sum total of about a month and a half. But technically, it seems that I may be subject to penalties since I don't have any US insurance coverage. No idea if there are exceptions for expats or not.

Did he downvote your comment?

Well, he banned my fucking account.

Because ummm, one of his sockpuppets was upset?

So, he gets to completely abuse his power here banning others and gets to create sock puppets, and the only downside is his sockpuppet gets banned?

http://i.imgur.com/StDTzLX.jpg

Why is he still here? Why are so many people not here anymore? I wonder if there's a connection.

This line of commentary is not dissimilar to various complaints about RDJ in the original YouTube.

Which kinda misses the nunace that RDJ really has only two things to bring to the table in terms of helping out with the bionic arm program. Celebrity and the attention it brings, and cash...

He could be a silent partner and quietly fund the guy actually building the arms (which is laudable), or he could use his celebrity as a vehicle to build awareness as well.

Now, thanks to him giving up a little of his time, a kid not only get's a kick ass bionic arm but he get's to talk to the guy that plays Iron Man (even though he understands it's not him), and the video goes viral. Even the conversation over RDJ self promoting vs helping out prolongs the exposure of the real hero here, the guy building the arms.

Even if people spent the time to look for programs like this, they wouldn't see even a fraction of the good work that is happening. Having a star use their fame to promote a great cause is a way of getting it noticed. I fail to see a downside, and further, challenge the people griping about it to try and promote a charity or organisation they feel are deserving without star power and see how well it goes.

I'm sure, however, that you could fund an arm for someone. Even lacking celebrity, you could change a life. Do you need cameras to be present before you do a good thing? \= )

-edit- What he said ^

I think it should be the opposite. How about a link that you can opt in to view image. I can't recall the last time someone linked by url or hyperlink an image they felt like sharing especially an informative one that compliments a video. I just don't think there is a need and if necessary i don't see why a link wouldn't suffice. Like I said i see little upside and potential big downside. Interesting comment threads is one of the best things about the sift. I think big images would visually hurt the flow of a comment thread. I think if it was a text link that could open an image then the flow would be fine but just an image seems like a bad idea.

I see little upside and a huge potential downside. Im guessing it would be used for sifters trying to be clever/funny and not sure what else. I think it would also derail comment threads easily with large images that take up a shit ton of space. With embedding videos it's typically used to add info to the sifted video in some manner.

Maybe if you have to click on a hyperlink type thing to open the image. Keeping the footprint small in the comment thread.

This is what i assume it would typically be used for. Personally i think it works fine just the way it was done with a hyperlink.
http://videosift.com/video/Left-Shark-The-Real-MVP-of-Super-Bowl-XLIX#comment-1841651

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.