Jump to content

Vertigo

Supreme User
  • Posts

    1,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by Vertigo

  1. Completely incorrect. Formatting height means centerline pallets only. Lack of aft lavatories means it has problems with flying pax too. Hello comfort pallet that must be moved up to the cargo door every stop to be serviced.

    The KC-10 is a tanker/transport machine.

    The KC-135 is a great tanker.

    The KC-46 is overall ok.

    18 pallet positions vice 6...

  2. Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason.

    Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic.

    The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category.

    The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part?

    Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required.

    You ignored the increased cargo carrying capacity. Granted that's not a tanker's primary mission... but the 46 is a vast improvement from the 135 in that aspect.

  3. What I don't understand is how the program rings up at $1.7 Billion for 2 jets...$850 million each. Boeing lists the price of a standard 747-8 at just under $358 million. I find it hard to believe that the A/R receptacle and other "mission mods" cost enough to more than double the cost.

    Considering it will contain a mobile command center, fully outfitted surgical center, a secure war room, hardened against EMP, new skin for stealthier profile, missile defense systems, inflation between now and the first flight- oh and $1.14B for researching the NEXT gen AF1.... see that right there is a large chunk of the $1.7B.

    edit: Not clear if that $1.14B is included in the $1.7B or if it's a separate request made to Congress.

  4. I'm sure this has already been addressed here, but I still think it's worthy of revisiting...just caught 300Rise of an Empire...best thing about the Movie: Eva Green... I don't know about an empire, she's definitely responsible for something rising...check out The Dreamers, too, for that matter!

    No thanks.

    josh-hartnett-eva-green-combat-penny-dre

    • Upvote 1
  5. Finance Guy: Due to my unit dropping the ball, they didn't get my GTC card in a timely manner. The RA put a rush order on GTC which was $20.

    I filed the voucher and Finance won't pay the rush fee. Is this legit?

    JTR Appendix G

    Reimbursable expenses:

    "2. Expedited delivery. Reimbursable when authorized/approved by the AO."

    So if your approving official signed off on it, they have to pay it.

    • Upvote 2
  6. They got rid of the 3% match towards your TSP? How many employers actually have a defined retirement plan? Most of the ones I have seen have gone to a 401k only plan. The way I looked at it was the Annuity was an added bonus to your 401k.

    No they didn't. The first 3% pays dollar per dollar matching, the next 2% pays 50 cents on the dollar.

    FERS-RAE (those hired after Jan 2014) the employees contribute 4.4% and the gov contributes 12.6%

  7. I think it's unfortunate that this gets painted wholly as race relations, when the police abuses are becoming ever more concerning across all of society. No-knock raids on the wrong houses, where people and dogs have been killed, and in one instance, a toddler burned so badly his family has over $1 million in medical bills...medical bills the SWAT team says they aren't responsible for because they were doing their jobs. Another no-knock raid on the wrong house ended with a 7-year-old girl dead from a gun shot wound in the head. The LAPD beat a white guy to death over the course of about 30 minutes...pretty sure he was done resisting well before that.

    Now, I don't think these rioters have the right answer. And I certainly will not argue that Michael Brown was a good person, nor that Eric Garner wasn't breaking the law. I'm also not arguing that every cop who shoots someone in the line of duty is a murderer and should be tried.

    On the other hand, we will clearly not reach any kind of solution as long as the police continue to view themselves as military units, going out to face hostiles every day, instead of PEACE officers, going out to serve and protect the people paying their salary. We keep hearing that it's a few bad apples that do this sort of thing...but I haven't seen very many police stand up and say "hey, that cop was a bad guy, I don't want him on the force anymore" when these abuses do happen.

    So no, I don't think the riots will solve anything. And no, I don't think one segment of the population is being oppressed. But I also don't think that every police officer is a saint and that all of them have only my well-being in mind.

    Totally agree. Why is no one asking the question why a victimless crime (Garner) was escalated to a violent confrontation by the PO when all that should have happened was the cop giving him a citation similar to a speeding ticket and going on his merry way?

    I have a few close friends and family members who are LEOs so don't think I'm a cop hater at all. But I am becoming more and more saddened by the "don't question my authority" attitude by some cops when a person stands up for their Constitutional rights.

    For example this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMlc0-LSMgA

    The cop gets mad when the individual, who is not doing anything illegal, refuses to give the cop his can of ice tea. There's no probable cause so the officer has no right to search the can. When his authority is questioned he tells the individual to leave under the threat of trespass. That officer is NOT the owner of that property and has no right to tell the individual to leave that property unless the property owner wants the customer to leave. But nonetheless his authority was questioned and he used that as an excuse to find something to arrest the individual on.

    • Upvote 1
  8. And if water boarding doesn't work, why did they do it? And if it was illegal, why haven't there been any prosecutions?

    There were. At the International Military Tribunals for the Far East (also known as the Tokyo Trials) in 1946, "water torture" or the "water cure" was listed as one of the charges when prosecuting/executing Japanese war criminals.

    • Upvote 1
  9. Vertigo,

    I'm not arguing that malpractice is the primary cause. I specifically stated it wasn't and simply stated that some regions in the past have been affected by malpractice law suits and gave one example. I think you are trying to find an argument where one doesn't exist. No need to burn your brain bytes trying to convince me of your point.

    Did you read my first paragraph? IMO, that is one of the reasons, because "easy" money is by nature inflationary (simple economics).

    Did you read my last paragraph that stated I believe it's a complicated issue? There is not a singular cause nor are there simple solutions.

    Sorry- but I believe a lot of folks believe tort reform is a panacea when it's actually a placebo.

    The Courts is one of the only avenues available to the populace to right injustices done against us. To limit that avenue, in my mind, is not the right thing to do. To discourage frivolous lawsuits the courts should take a look at what's being done with the frivolous lawsuits being filed by patent trolls- lose your case without any validity and you pay the defense costs.

  10. Easy money inflates whatever it targets. Low mortgage rates in general cause higher home prices (until the bubble bursts, like in Vegas). Easier access to student loans have increased tuition rates. This appiles to health care costs also. People via insurance and/or government subsidies have easier access to health care, thus increasing the demand, and thus increasing costs.

    Medical malpractive is not the primary cause for the rising costs, but has affected some regions and specialties. I read in a Forbes article where some doctors in Dade County, FL have 1400% higher malpractice insurance premiums compared to their counterparts in MN. That does have an impact. There are regions that had difficulty in attracting certain specialties because of malpractice suits. That also impacts cost. Mississippi used to be notorious, but several years ago, passes tort reform legislation.

    Complicated subject with no easy explanation or solution. Unless we want to continue passing our debt to future generations, someone or some group is going to get screwed. It's a zero sum game. I don't mind paying a little more if it helps a large group who for whatever reason have had trouble getting insurance, like pre-existing conditions, lay-offs, etc.

    Malpractice payments account for less than 1% of the nation's health care costs each year.The size of malpractice damage awards has remained steady since 1991. Adjusted for inflation, the average malpractice payment has actually decreased since then. The number of payments for malpractice judgments of $1 million or more has never exceeded one-half of one percent of the annual total number of malpractice payments dating back to 1991.

    So while healthcare costs have risen drastically; malpractice payouts have actually decreased when adjusted for inflation. So are you telling me that because malpractice is costing us less that's what's driving up the cost of healthcare?

    In 2003 Texas passed a comprehensive tort reform amendment to their Constitution. In 10 years time they have seen a reduction by 2/3 the number of claims and a fall of 22% in average payout.

    Yet from 2005 - 2009 (only 4 years) healthcare costs in Texas rose 36.1%; nearly four times the inflation rate and over four times the population growth.

    So malpractice costs when down significantly, yet healthcare costs rose significantly...

    What does drive up the cost of health care is doctors ordering excessive and unnecessary care (i.e. ordering a slew of tests that are unnecessary or of marginal value) because the doctor will get paid for ordering those services.

    38 states already have tort reform laws in place limiting liability and 34 have laws limiting punitive damages... yet with well over half the nation living in states that have enacted tort reform we have not seen any positive effect on rising health care costs.

    Are you saying it's the malpractice insurance that's costing so much? How much would you guess malpractice insurance to be for a year? $20K? $50K? $100K?

    This doctor pays $2947.48 a year, the doctor above him pays $6 more a year. Other doctor's in his area pay a bit more depending on their specialty but only one group (OB/GYN) he felt paid too much.

  11. 3 feet away is a safe distance or is that considered danger close? What exactly is the seat pitch spacing on an aircraft front to back and side to side? Do I need the Captains initials before I sneeze and send droplets danger close?

    We can play Google fact badminton all day long. When presented with a lot of unknowns and changing facts, the logical course of action is to take the safest course of action. If I recall, even the medical profession (that kills 100,000+ per year through accidents) says, First, do no harm.

    Then the absolute safest way is to stop all intentional commerce. Deny entry into the U.S. by anyone currently outside our borders. And quarantine every single citizen at the exact same time for 21 days. That way we'd be 100% certain there will be no cases.

    But I think that's over the top, just as illegally detaining a healthy person with negative test results is over the top.

    But if concentration camps are your final solution to this fear mongering. Be sure to be the first in line.

    The droplets won't transmit ebola just by landing on you. They'd have to enter into your system. So the sneeze would have to get in your eye, mouth, etc.

  12. Hate to keep beating a dead ebola ridden horse, but it seems the experts keep moving the goalposts regarding the transmissibility of this stuff. Looks like it can survive in droplets, like sneezes, and on surfaces for for some time. Let ebola freedom ring!

    http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

    No, the experts are pretty set on the goalpost.

    " Stephen Gire, a researcher at the Harvard Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology who studies the Ebola genome, said if someone who is showing symptoms sneezed directly on you from within 3 feet, it could, technically, transfer the virus. But people further away wouldn’t have to worry about those particles lingering in the air.

    Under very limited conditions the virus could survive outside the body, Gire said.

    First, the fluid would have to remain in liquid form. Once it dried up, the virus would die. Second, it would have to be a very cool and dark setting.

    "It has to be a highly engineered environment for Ebola to survive in this environment," Gire said. "Stable temperature; on the right type of surface; not exposed to light, etc. These are highly, highly unlikely scenarios in nature and normal environments, and should not be seen as something that is likely to happen."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-you-cant-get-ebola-riding-bus-or/

  13. Okay, there you are, traveling somewhere on a commercial jet with your wife (partner for Eagle drivers), kids, infants, parents, brothers and sisters. Also onboard is a guy that recently handled a dying Ebola patient showing no symptoms plus a person that treated that person and has a low grade fever but her boss says she is good to travel. Your family will be seated in front of, behind, and directly beside these people. So you guys are telling me that you see no problem exposing your loved ones to these people?

    Nope, no problem. I'm not, nor is ny family, going to touch, taste, ingest or inhale either of these two people's puke, piss or shit.

  14. You and I agree on a lot when it comes to Civil Liberties/warrantless search and seizure etc. I don't see this a shitting on the Constitution, since there is justified concern this women or any travel could have Ebola. No they aren't criminals but they could constitute a threat to the general public. Yes she didn't spend 21 days in NJ because Christie caved to political pressure and sent her to Maine, but she is still under a quarantine order there. If the medical professionals say they can detect and clear people earlier than that then I say great. However, I'm skeptical of you trusting the CDC and considering the current political climate. Considering the flurry of conflicting information from "experts", quarantine against a high mortality rate virus with no solid cure is and always will be the best practice. Yes the flu kills thousands every year but what percentage is that of actual people infected? Furthermore we have successfully handled the handful of people infected here in the states, but from my friends in the medical community, they are I'll equipped to deal with even a small outbreak. I have no interest in getting bent out of shape over this, it is currently not a massive threat, but it could become so.

    I get what you're saying, but "could become" isn't enough in my mind to forfeit basic human freedom.

  15. That 36,000 number keeps coming up so I found this. Statistics don't lie, only statisticians do. I think 500 sounds low but 36,000 is certainly too high.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

    We limit activities all the time when those activities might endanger others and erroring on the side of caution when dealing with a 70%Pk (30% and dropping quickly in the US) seems wise.

    http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/implementation/topics/immunization.html

    "An average of 36,000 deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations associated with influenza occur each year in the United States1-2 "

  16. Well considering it takes 21 days for the symptoms to show; testing negative today doesn't really mean much. This isn't a detainment without cause nor is it an indefinite detainment. And yes lets take this to the absolute absurd, we should detain 5 year-old Jimmy with the cold.

    I'll take the expert medical advice of doctors and the cdc who say they can detect it before 21 days over some anonymous dude on a flyers forum.

    You realize she was in there for less than 21 days, right?

    The absolute absurb? There's been exactly TWO deaths in the U.S. - as opposed to 40K a year. You tell me what's more absurd... shitting on the Constitution without cause or quarantining an actual verifiable threat to public health that causes tens of thousands of deaths a year?

×
×
  • Create New...