There are two possible reasons. Firstly, they might just freeze. Secondly, if they actually think they're hitting the brake pedal, then the way to stop is to hit it harder, right? In either case, the car isn't doing what they expected and it takes time to work out why.

For a non-car example of someone just freezing up under pressure, see http://videosift.com/video/Accidental-take-off-of-Victor-Bob-Prothero-explains - the ground engineer drafted in to man the throttles didn't do so well under pressure.

I was quite sure I'd upvoted this already... oh well, upvoting now.

I've worked the back of the house (dish washer, prep cook, pantry cook, line cook), and the front of the house (bartender, server).

I never got tipped in the back of the house, but I worked harder and utilized more skills. I got paid hourly, and would therefore milk the clock as much as possible to help buy booze and pay the rent.

As a bartender, I've worked at night clubs, dive bars, martini bars, hotel bars, house parties and I was paid a decent hourly, which was essential for those slow and lonely Monday night shifts. But I made good money on the weekends. However, it usually takes time to work your way to those lucrative spots.

As a server, I get paid a little more than $2 an hour plus tips. But the tips are so impossible to calculate because of a myriad of factors -- how many servers are on, how many tables are reserved, how many parties, what's going on at the Arena, what's going on at the Lied, is it snowing, is it raining, is there a sporting event going on, are they splitting the bill, have they worked in the industry, are they from a country unfamiliar with tipping, was the food good, was the food cold, was the drink stiff, was the wine paired well, was the host pretty, was the bathroom out of paper towels, ad nausea -- that budgeting is impossible. I don't auto grat (gratuity of 18 percent of the bill for parties of seven or more) unless it's a sorority party, Mormons, or New Year's Eve, and that's only because I've been burned so badly by these groups.

What most diners don't realize is that it's really a matter of real estate -- and on a busy weekend night one server may be lucky to 'have' four to six tables with a variable of two and four seats. Dinner is generally served between the hours of 5-11. So, this gives the server a set number of data points for the evening (side note, so for the love God don't linger at a table if you're not ordering anything! When a server is forced to refill your water at $2 an hour, it's rude and disrespectful. That's what bars are for). In addition, most servers 'tip out' the host and bartender staff. On a weekend night, I typically tipped out 22 percent, and I never knew if I'd make $30 or $130.

So I know the business fairly well (I even studied hospitality in Vegas for a minute), and as a server I can make your experience remarkable. Ironically, the best tippers are younger college-era students working in the industry.

I think if anything is going to eliminate tipping in the service industry, it'll be some sort of computerized experiment where you sit at a table and punch in what you want. Till then, be conscientious and considerate when you wine and dine.

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

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

I think the Democratic voters failed to turn out for a few reasons. All the media made it seem like it was going to be a Republican win, even the "liberal media" was portraying it that way. This led to a defeatist "what can I do?" mentality. Another is that Democrats failed to really push a couple key issues, namely raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work. Heck, even just saying that minimum wage will be tied to inflation and go up with inflation each yet, even if it isn't fully adjusted to where it would be now, would have been a big step forward. They shied away from those, just like when they passed Obamacare they shied away from single payer or the government option that was promised and instead gave us an old Republican plan under the assumption Republicans would be glad the Democrats caved in and accepted a Republican idea.

The Democrats failed to deliver largely because Republican obstructionism. This isn't to absolve them of their failure during the two years they could have really moved forward with a true progressive agenda.

Fox News and the pulpit have the Republican voter base convinced to vote Republican, that Obama is singlehandedly destroying America (I'm surrounded by these people every day, I have to unfortunately live with them, I used to be a right wing, Christian Republican myself, then became a right wing Christian Libertarian before I actually started applying real critical thought to the economic impact of the policies as society stands now and became more Liberal). The pulpit has convinced these people that it doesn't matter Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, to heal the sick, and basically everything 100% opposite of the beliefs of the Republican party, to vote Republican anyhow, and it to be the Christian vote. They deny being Christian Reconstructionist while being clearly Reconstructionist. They say things like "if you actually think about it critically, CO2 is good for plants, so their argument is silly" and they accept it, because plants absorb CO2 they think that CO2 emissions can't be as bad as the environmentalist say it is, after all, greenhouses pump CO2 into them to make plants grow better. Again I was guilty of repeating that sort of non-sense. Then it occurred to me there are no walls around plants in the wild, there is no ceiling to help keep CO2 near where plants are, and the fact that very little of the Earth is filled with green (let alone the fact most plants are doing as much CO2 exchange as they can already).... that most of the Earth is blue... that yes the ocean absorbs CO2, but in doing to warms it and that drives massive changes including storms in of itself and learned the real consequences of CO2 emissions.

As Ralph Nader recently pointed out (http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-GOP-8482-s-2014-Wins) the Democrats can't just blame Citizens United or attempts by Republicans to try and limit voting among the poor, they have to take a look at the fact they didn't push the issues that most Americans stand behind but didn't push.

I like the idea of moving elections to the weekend. That probably would help more than some calls of late to make it a Federal Holiday. Most places don't close on Federal Holiday's anyhow, so that won't really help as much as moving it to a weekend... of course one could also argue that people might not want to take time out of their weekends to vote.

This video shows that it's already changing. The video's argument is to get over it. For the guy in the video, he doesn't view it as sexist.

attitudes change all the time. If they didn't we wouldn't have equality of the sexes codified in the law, we'd still have slavery, support for same sex marriage would not be over 50 percent as it is now. Violence would still be the default method of resolving any conflict

it just takes time.

Women make less money overall because they don't work overtime as often and they take time off to have children.

You smartasses ain't so smart after all.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

You believe your own liberal rags, don't you?

Beet me my less than a minute. Curse taking time trying to figure out what tags to use.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sunscreen-Works-If-You-Use-it-Right

EDIT: I probably should have submitted this one first then the related one....

@ChaosEngine @Trancecoach

The bottle experiment - as far as i can find - has never been cited as experimental evidence of global warming because it's a simplistic demonstration for laymen. It's been cited only twice since 2010 (in 2012, 2014) by papers that offer up alternative gases that better represent the earth's atmosphere to be used in future demonstrations - it doesn't form any part of the scientific debate. The paper is just a criticism of a demonstration.

The paper is correct - the demonstration doesn't reflect reality. But that doesn't in any way form a basis to discredit the science of climate change - it discredits the gas-in-a-bottle demonstration. In Britain, I've never seen that demonstration live or recorded, and there will be many scientists across the world that also haven't seen it. We haven't been using it, and we're convinced. So in truth, especially with the number of references and type of references that the paper got, it is not part of the scientific investigation into climate change, and to use it as such is to completely misunderstand the discussion. The funny thing is (which the article doesn't mention) is that the paper is called "Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics". Sadly i can't access the paper using my subscriptions to actually read it and see if it even mentions the large scale system - Earth.

@lantern53 - Did you take the time to read my comment or the sources i linked? I'm really open to discuss them with you, why you think they're not worth believing. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours though; a scientist is offering to explain things to you and taking time to write friendly and helpful (hopefully?) comments and you'd rather bait someone.

this should be common knowledge and totally non-controversial.
but in my country people are so saturated by materialism and actually judge their own value by their ability to purchase and how much money they make.

and they wonder why they need medications to:ease their anxiety,"balance" their brain chemicals,help them sleep,help them stay awake and alert.

i deal with this on a weekly basis and it has been getting worse.
normal people spending so much energy to project this so-called "perfect' life,when the reality is they are broken and disillusioned.

it is not an easy thing to tell someone that the life they had been leading was a lie and not the reality they may have actually wanted for themselves.

that they had become slaves to a system that sought only to extract value from them,while reciprocating nothing in return.

freeing people from the invisible chains that bind them is a process that takes time.i am not always successful but it can be done and it is a worthy challenge.

while i appreciated the words in this talk i have to admit it has made me a tad sad....this should be common knowledge.

my country has terminal spiritual cancer....
im going to go watch some cartoons now,or have a good cry...

I don't even see this as a gender issue, it's a market issue.

If you're selling your house, you'll sell it to whoever pays me most, which most commonly is a two income couple.

If you're hiring someone, you'll hire the best person for the job, and given the choice between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, that will be the one without kids (they are less likely to take time off at short notice).

This is how a market works, and surprise, surprise, the places that are more "liveable" tend to be less market-driven.

Hahaha..im..im not sure what to say. My mind is still taking time to comprehend this merger.

Young, sexy people that live in Malibu call it The 'Bu, because when you say the entire word, it takes time, and then you wouldn't be young anymore.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.