Post a video, present me a POV!

Saw the following in the comments section of an article about developing a new Air Force tanker and couldn't help but think that it sums up equipment procurement in the US armed forces to a T:

Great video. I'm going to have to find that movie and give it a look.

Trophy Husband wrote:

Great video. I'm going to have to find that movie and give it a look.

Also stars Kelsey Grammar as a general who butts heads with Elwes' character. He's kind of like the captain from Down Periscope only with zero sense of humor.

Yes, well, it's a pity Dragon's Dogma doesn't exist in my gaming universe.

Okay, he's dead, let's.... let's head to... is that thing just going to stick around? I mean... it's getting dark. Do we go around it? Are we too close now? Oh wait it's slowing... nope, still going. Siiiigh. Did the orcs behind us just respawn?

Is releasing a THIRD (Unnecessary) trailer for this film a week after an actually rather devastating earthquake in not-America Nepal not just a LITTLE on the insensitive side. Maybe add in a link to somewhere people could maybe donate to a relief effort or something at least, not just to some generic American Red Cross "preparedness" website.

One of the women in my class at school has a friend (ex-pat) out there who's a helicopter pilot who she's in contact with at the moment. Weirdly, being almost killed by a falling building turns out to be far less entertaining in real life.

6,900 dead, 15000 injured so far at last count, by the way.

Good to know *someone* is understudying Alex Jones, so when the UN Black Helos take him away, the Truth will still be Out There. In more ways than one.

After the fifth "I am a US military aircraft" I probably would have busted out silly voices.

Rat Boy wrote:

After the fifth "I am a US military aircraft" I probably would have busted out silly voices.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Gx4dWxt.png)

Spoiler:

Meow!

Stop that right meow!

Nancy Grace Debates Nancy Grace on the Effects of Cannabis

The Problem With Frats

What Bill Gates is afraid of

This one is fun. It's kind of weird to be stereotyped in this way.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/4Exb7YP.jpg)

Why The F#@k Can't We Have Rain Barrels?

I never really thought about it but the logic is consistent. I am not sure I agree with applying the logic here but it is consistent.

It's logical because of how unusual the premise is--that even rain falling from the sky is considered part of the 'waterflow' of whomever has rights to the 'water source' where it ends up.

I guess the premise is illogical to me because if you don't build the house in the first place the rain will sink into the ground (edit) that is now the footprint of the building. The act of building the house diverts the water from what the original course of the water would have been.

In some ways, using a rainbarrel to water the lawn returns the rain closer to its original course than rain that falls on a pitched roof and flows faster away from the ground where the lawn now is due to the funnelling action of the gutters.

So really, shouldn't gutters be even more illegal? Is there an exemption? Depending on where I route my downspout I could be diverting water away from a rights holder far more effectively than whatever I do with the water from my rainbarrel as long as that water is returned to the ground of my property.

The idea that someone can own something that doesn't fall on their land (and can own something that falls on someone else's land, even) is what bugs me. But, it's the rights of singular homeowners versus a massive agricultural industry, so of course the big crushes the small with the law.

Rainbarrels are just delayed rain.

complexmath wrote:

Rainbarrels are just delayed rain.

The issue is that delayed rain is actually different than normal rain. If you get an inch of rain your lawn/the natural soil and flora can only absorb a tiny bit of it. After that the ground is saturated and the rest of the water flows down hill. By capturing the rain and storing it, then letting it out a teeny bit at a time to water your grass, you have completely changed the destination of that water. Now you are only watering your lawn and probably not even saturating the ground (meaning you're not really contributing to the water table either) and certainly not sending much water down hill. Also you're by definition doing this on a less humid day then when it was raining, so you'll lose more to evaporation as well, especially if it's also hotter, which is very likely because rainy days are usually cooler.

Demosthenes wrote:

The idea that someone can own something that doesn't fall on their land (and can own something that falls on someone else's land, even) is what bugs me. But, it's the rights of singular homeowners versus a massive agricultural industry, so of course the big crushes the small with the law.

This really isn't a small homeowners vs agricultural issue. It's a less intuitive but still a pure "tragedy of the commons" situation. I actually really doubt that the main benefactors of this rule are in the agricultural industry. Sure most of the water in California is used in agriculture, but the other states involved have a much smaller portion of their water used in agriculture.

And, just like in most other "tragedy of the commons" situations, it's the big businesses which are really in a great position to exploit things and ruin it for everybody, I really don't think "can't have a rain barrel" as the inconvenience to individuals holds a candle to the sorts of things companies owning huge tracts of land could do to society if we decided "screw it, land owners own the rain now, it's not like humans have ever used rivers over the course of the entire species existence or anything".

Hillary Clinton came out with a response to the recent supreme court ruling.

Spoiler:

just kidding, this was before political climate suited her to be pro gay.

Wow. That's really sad. Socially conservative Democrats make me a sad camper.

Also, from the comments on that video, this 2008 video (somewhat less surprising considering his policies during his terms of office):

FiveIron wrote:

Hillary Clinton came out with a response to the recent supreme court ruling.

Or maybe her 2004 speech was the one where she was bowing to perceived popular opinion. Or maybe she just changed her mind?