^ Agreed. On the one hand, the candidates need a big-picture individualism, stoicism, and acceptance that they're leaving all the people they love behind -- they need the ability to "disconnect" from that human companionship-- yet they also have to somehow get along with 3 strangers. To say nothing of the ability to not totally flip out when a chestburster pops out of one of them during dinner.

On the one hand when the sticker goes on, a part of me thinks oh god, well that's a bit much. But then again, when they try to run the lads over they totally deserve it, and they do give repeated warnings about what WILL happen before they do it. I very rarely break any rules when i'm out driving, the very most i'll do is speed by 10 mph to keep with the flow of traffic instead of impeding it when everyone rushes home from work. But i'd like to think if i were in that situation, faced with their reasoned and polite arguments, i'd end up commending them before doing as they asked.

it looks so soft with a fluffy mushroom of snow in front of it, I think I could stand out there and stop it with one hand raised

As I'm reading today's articles about the situation in Greece/Europe, Keynes' "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" came to mind:

We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value.

The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life- will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semicriminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

This must be very confusing for feminists.
On the one hand, it objectifies women...men having sex with one part of the woman. On the other hand, whatever floats your boat! On the other hand, it empowers Eufrat (if she gets a piece of the licensing). That only leaves one hand left...what to do, what to do?

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

As a non american i always felt that pretty much all americans have an issue with racism.. be it good or bad...

On the one hand the thought police punishes everyone who dares to use racist language (in any context whatsoever) but on the other, people of different color are so obviously mistreated that all the vocabulary seems like childs play.

Nowhere else in the world have i seen so many people beeing racist by the very definition of the word but beeing totally unaware of it. That goes for the intellectual elite aswell who do nothing against the idea of communities built upon racial characteristics.

Black neighbourhood? Srsly? The entire system is racist..

On the one hand, fuck parking tickets. On the other hand, I think fate/karma might have chosen the recipient on this one.

Take a look in the mirror, shiny.

My position is backed up by mountains (both methaphorically and literally) of evidence. You have nothing. I've looked at the so-called evidence for a young earth or creationism and I dismissed it almost instantly.

It fails almost every conceivable test of reliable evidence almost instantly. I am not obliged to consider nonsense. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you.

If I tell you the sky is pink and green with a giant picture of Steve Carell on it, I'd want some pretty decent evidence to back that up.

I don't have to "seek out someone who agreed" with me, that is the default position. It is the accepted scientific reality.

Part of the reason, I don't have to continually reassess my acceptance of it is because it makes sense. I don't go around thinking "man, evolution is a cool idea, but I wonder why it doesn't explain X", because it does explain X (where X is any silly creationist nonsense like irreduceable complexity, etc).

So, on one hand we have evolution, which has:
- an elegant, sensible theory
- millions and millions of man hours of study
- ginormous swathes of evidence

and on the other we have creationism, which has:
- some old book said it's true and the same book said the book is true (despite the fact that said book has been wrong time and time again)

Anyway, I'm done here.
Have fun on the wrong side of history; you can take a seat over there beside the flat earthers, the slave-owners and the people that thought non-whites were genetically inferior.

Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. Emperor Obama didn't.

On one hand the president was engaged with the house and senate and the other president just figuratively said fuck you to the house and senate.

Also, remember the Democrats had all 3 branches for the first 2 years and the Obama campaign was to make immigration reform as one of his key addenda items once elected.


Finally if an illegal alien is already here working ( paying taxes ect) by very definition they ARE taking an American job.

I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

These two ideas go hand-in-hand. It's very nice for us to sit around and swap stories of our experiences with psychedelics, but we have to recognise that we have enemies who want to steal these experiences from us. You can't on the one hand believe that drugs are fine and people should take them if they want to and on the other say, "oh hey, here's this guy who thinks everyone who uses drugs should be kidnapped and locked in a box for years; that cool - live and let live." Is that thinking really something we can even recognise as human? I don't, and we have a right to defend ourselves from it, by say, stringing its advocates up from the nearest tree. So what do we call something subhuman that deserves to be lynched?

You're notice I'm not so much of a one for universal love and brotherhood.

Too sweet for my taste.

And @Sagemind, you couldn't be further from the truth. If getting drunk is your aim, whiskey is one of the most expensive ways of doing that.

As for the video, I'm torn. On one hand, whiskey! and women! I like those things.

On the other hand.... ugh buzzfeed. fuck those guys.

edit: and I've just watched it... sorry @lv_hunter, but that was terrible.
They couldn't have tried more than just JD? No Scotch single malts? No Irish blends?

I did tape scratching in the 90s a lot, with modified reel to reel machine. The technique i used is harder, doesn't differ from vinyl scratching a lot (except in mine, i didn't cut the audio with fader but lifting the tape head from tape. THe end result surprised me, didn't expect it to work as at that point, had no knowledge of anyone ever using that (now i of course know that i was actually late..) It is a lot like vinyl, you still need to keep manually rotating the reels, working with the tape motor, needing to hit hits precisely without actually seeing where they are (easier with reel but there's a lot of tape in that reel and manually rotating against the motor and motion, makes the tape tighten so you can't use marks on the reels either...) Plus few handy effect like taking both reels and just turning them opposite directions, making the tape sits still but stretching, making all kinds of nice screeching sounds as the vibrations from the reel and the tape are heard, not the audio material on tape...)

Next i'm thinking of refitting old 5,4" floppy disk with analog tape head and maybe drawing the recordings on to to it, attaching the tape head to the end of my index finger.. Then i could get even closer to vinyl as there is something interesting on rotating sound sources.. Mainly it is the recording part that makes tape scratching interesting, taking a scratch sample, scratching it, resampling it again, using signal generators, designing harmonics etc.. Maybe that's next for me, using one hand to record and the other to play back.

pouring acid on a flask one handed...ummh.. putting the stopper one handed, wut? and then after all that, putting the cork on the bottle, one handed.. But the stopper on the flask, that was pretty dangerous move to make. One of the reasons why you don't sit while you work on dangerous chemicals.