Im never in a rush so I am usually at the speed limit or a little above if the right lane is very congested. Keep in mind im in fl, so the speed limit is 70.

Slow drivers in the left on i95 isn't usually a problem, what is usually the problem is 1) people who pass but DON'T move to the center lane for people going faster behind them, and 2) impatient fucks who won't let you get more then a cars length in front of the person on the right and will proceed to cut THEM off to pass YOU on the right side.

You have no idea how many times ive had to be the car that plugs up the right lane when a truck has needed to move left and cant move right again because everyone proceeds to pass it on the right.

As much as this video has merit, it doesn't cover that many if not most drivers are shit drivers.

but, but, but.... how is this any different from the magical car that checks, tops up, and changes its oil all by itself AND rotates it tires and renews its brakes on a regular basis... or the mysterious toilet that gets plugged up and, as if by magic, gets cleared again sometime after Daddy gets home....

My post is not hyperbole, but actual personal observation.



You also have to factor in cost+ funding.

On one hand, it's necessary. Because you don't know how much something truly new will cost - you haven't done it before. You'll discover as you go.
It would be unfair to bind a company to a fixed cost, when nobody knows what the cost will be. It's mathematically unreasonable to entertain a fixed cost on new technologies.

(Granted, everyone gives silly lowballed best-case estimates when bidding. Anyone that injects a sense of reality into their bid is too costly and doesn't get the contract).

On the other hand, cost+ means that you make more money by spending more money. So hiring hordes of nobodies for every little task, making 89347589374 different position titles, is only gonna make you more money. There's no incentive to save.



F35 wise, like I said, it's not designed for any war we fight now.
It's designed for a war we could fight in the future.
Because you don't start designing weapons when you're in a war, you give your best effort to have them already deployed, tested, and iterated into a good sustainable state, before the onset of a conflict that could require them.

F35 variations are not complicated. The VTOL variation is the only one with any complexity. The others are no more complex than historical variations from early to late blocks of any given airframe.

The splitting of manufacturing isn't in itself a complication ridden approach. It's rather normal for different companies to work on unrelated systems. Airframe will go somewhere, avionics elsewhere, engine elsewhere, etc. That's basically a given, because different companies specialize in different things.

Keep in mind that the large prime contracts (Lockheed/GD/etc) don't actually "make" many things. They are systems integrators. They farm out the actual development for most pieces (be it in house contractors or external contractors - because they are easy to let go after the main dev is over), and they themselves specialize in stitching the pieces together. Connecting things is not difficult when they are designed with specified ICDs from the get-go. The black boxes just plug up to each other and go.

The issues that arise are often a matter of playing telephone. With one sub needing to coordinate with another sub, but they have to go through the prime, and the prime is filtering everything through a bunch of non-technical managers. Most problems are solved in a day or two when two subs physically get their engineers together and sort out any miscommunications (granted, contracts and process might not allow them the then fix the problem in a timely and affordable manner).

The F22 and F35 issues are not major insurmountable tasks. The hardest flaws are things that can be fixed in a couple months tops on the engineering side. What takes time is the politics. Engineers can't "just fix it". There's no path forward for that kind of work.

Sure, in a magic wonderland you could tell them "here, grab the credit card, buy what you need, make any changes you need, and let us know when you're done" - and a little while later you'd have a collection of non-approved, non-reviewed, non-traceable, non-contractually-covered changes that "just fix the damn thing"... and you'd also have to incur the wrath of entire departments who were denied the opportunity to validate their existence. The 'high paid welfare' system would be all over your ass.

-scheherazade

Okay, plug up that giant asshole you call a mouth for like two seconds and try to pick on up [sic] the NUANCES of these next few statements.

Why? Why would one situation be wrong, and the other right?

Why would "institutional" discrimination be wrong, but institutional discrimination done by a privately owned institution be right?

Either way it's the "public" police who'd be applying violence to uphold these edicts.

And BTW, didn't you say not more than a handful of comments ago that we're actually not past this, and that you think these sorts of bigoted institutions would come back if they were legal?
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.
[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]
However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.
He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.
AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Okay, plug up your bleeding heart for like two seconds and try to pick on up the NUANCES of these next few statements.

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.

[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]

However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.

He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.

AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Meaning, we don't need a fuckin' law to tell us it's immoral.
E.G. "Good thing the 13th Amendment will never be repelled. Otherwise, all my black friends would have to be slaves again"

[Luckily for us, those Yankees made an amendment. Now we only have wage, sex, prison and sweatshop slavery to contend with! Go Liberal Democrats!!]

I feel i've been very honest about the implications of a Ron Paul presidency.
I agree that some groups will seek to reestablish institutionalized discrimination under the guise of property rights [which I never intentionally advocated for this entire discussion].

Again, not the point!

The entire point of Ron Paul becoming president is to reshape the political landscape!

You know, into one where our tiny individual voices actually make a significant difference.

I'll put this argument in the simplest terms I can:

p1 - @NetRunner wants to see political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

p2 - A Ron Paul Presidency would enable political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

C - @NetRunner should advocate for a Ron Paul Presidency.

Shit, late for work.
kthanksbai

>> ^longde:

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.
There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Two examples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.
China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.
Lastly, these students are arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.
>> ^njjh201:
I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.



I think you are missing the point behind asking about Tiananmen. It's not their lack of knowledge, but rather the lack of freedom to speak about it. If you plan to continue living in China and climbing the ladder, appearing on camera speaking against the Tiananmen massacre is risky and not a particularly wise move.

If you want a current example ask about Taiwanese independence and you'll find most of the sympathy and support for non-intervention suddenly evaporating.

Don't dismiss the veto of the Syrian motion so lightly either. There is no question that unarmed civilians in Syria are being killed by the Syrian military. The Arab league itself was the one asking for the UN motion that China and Russia vetoed. Complaining about the damage FOX does is great, but at least be even handed enough to recognize the direct damage also done by vetoing the Syrian motion...

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.

There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Two examples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.

China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.

Lastly, these students are not arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.

>> ^njjh201:

I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect. And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

You also failed in your economic analysis. To say that the stimulus jobs created 1 job for every $200,000 is the most absurd thing I've ever read. First off, it assumes that the only jobs created are the jobs of people it directly contributed to hiring without taking into account the residual effects of said hiring, or the results of whatever goods and services produced from the work they did. How many jobs are created or preserved by building infrastructure? How many jobs were created or preserved by providing all workers hired through stimulus programs, which in turn spent that income on goods and services produced by private sector workers? What about workers producing goods and services necessary for these programs that wouldn't immediately show up?

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

The economy is cyclical in nature. Stopping the bleeding is a big deal. And most economists believe the stimulus bill wasn't as successful as it should have been is because it wasn't big enough, not because it was too big or was done at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

So there's completely DUH obvious undeniable, there's no other way to explain it, basic US historical fact that we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending. How can you possibly argue that "when government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn." So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?! You have no factual claims to stand on! Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression! We deficit spent quite a bit leading up to WWII, still didn't get out of the Great Depression, massive record deficit spent, THEN got out of the Depression. It is undeniable that's what did the trick.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.
The facts...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.
Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campa
ign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.
I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!
But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.
But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs
They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.
I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

The facts...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.

Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.

Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campaign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.

I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!

But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.

But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs

They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.

I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
>> ^Creature:
Anyone that watches this and thinks that what happened is "okay" needs counseling. The cop was choking and beating him. Choking is not a good way to pry a mouth open. It is, however, a good way to seriously injure someone. What I saw was murder, hands down. I hope the men that did this see their day in court.

There was no attempt to 'pry' his mouth open. His hand on his throat was to prevent him from swallowing. You don't stick your fingers in the mouth of a tweaked out meth head who is already trying to resist you... all you get is your fingers bitten off and hepatitis for your trouble.
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where the coroner listed "asphyxiation" as a cause of death? No because he was not applying enough force to prevent breathing.
This fat meth'd out tub of shit died because his plugged up heart gave out during the struggle HE caused.

"Stogner died from severe coronary artery disease, an enlarged heart, and a fracture of the hyoid bone in his neck"

As I said before, if you're so angry as to wish death as a punishment for disobedience and a victemless crime go get counseling. Its unhealthy, and quite frankly disturbing.

>> ^Creature:
Anyone that watches this and thinks that what happened is "okay" needs counseling. The cop was choking and beating him. Choking is not a good way to pry a mouth open. It is, however, a good way to seriously injure someone. What I saw was murder, hands down. I hope the men that did this see their day in court.


There was no attempt to 'pry' his mouth open. His hand on his throat was to prevent him from swallowing. You don't stick your fingers in the mouth of a tweaked out meth head who is already trying to resist you... all you get is your fingers bitten off and hepatitis for your trouble.

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where the coroner listed "asphyxiation" as a cause of death? No because he was not applying enough force to prevent breathing.

This fat meth'd out tub of shit died because his plugged up heart gave out during the struggle HE caused.

Aye, a plugged-up culvert.

Perhaps an option as a perk to advertisers, if they do actually manage to pay for space as well as producing some entertaining eye-candy, a voting booth for their adverts, for a chance at the Big Published Front Page.....where there, we can rip it to shreds. You can't pay for a better plug, up votes and approval from paying members.

Then we can sell them, our copyrighted testimonials, after we have been given a year supply of whatever they sell, to consumer report on ...... some real pyramid scheme potential here as well......

*quality (I don't need the video credits. I'm just curious if anyone plugged up this loophole