What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bob Gray said:
You're being obtuse. So, of the federal government passed a law saying that everyone's hair is red, you'd believe that everyone's hair is red. I swear I never cease to be amazed by the stuff I read on here.
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one being obtuse...Scooby is saying he agrees with you but the law doesnt. Scooby doesnt agree with it, in fact he argued AGAINST IT but no matter what you or he say it doesnt change what NCLB is and stands for.

Maybe if you took off your blinders and actually put some thought into what you are reading (if I can you surely can) you might realize what Scooby is saying. As it is, you are just as obtuse as the people you go "whoosh" too.

edit to add so that you cant play dumb here is what Scooby said:

ScoobyDoo said:
No, no I'm not. I made the very argument your making and the government didn't care. I made the very argument you are making in my local school district (along with countless others) and the local school district didn't care.

And you're not being kind. You're being oblivious to what is going on around you. The Federal Law says that all students are the same. That's what it says, and that's the law of the land. I'm not making it up.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

walrus said:
If they did wouldn't there scores be better no matter what the school. Unions don't mean sh_t in regards to test scores, you know it I know it
Click to expand...

IMO unions are by and large nonproductive and nonvalue add in most professions.

But, this is not about unions. This is about making sure that we allocate the correct amount of funds to education...and ensuring that we attract strong talent there. Unions are just a tool to ensure that, yet also reflect larger educational environments in these states that haven't constantly been put under the axe. I think its no coincidence that 11 of the top 12 states on that list have over 75% unionization in their schools.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

As is common, people frequently confuse fair with equal. Wouldn't surprise me that the government would make them synonymous...could you imagine if they allowed for any allowance in economic, ethnicity, weather or immigration variances? People, right and left, would go ape.

If the government came out and said tall people, as opposed to short, make better basketball players , they would create a huge problem. Partly because they are the biggest purveyor of fair=equal.

I'm surprised they are allowed to restrict Navy pilots by height and don't have to instead build special planes with enlarged canopies (at $1b per canopy) to account for the Navy basketball team...wait, that would mean tall people actually are more likely to make the basketball team...which can't be true.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

5mn_Major said:
. I think its no coincidence that 11 of the top 12 states on that list have over 75% unionization in their schools.
Click to expand...
if thats the case those same union teachers could go into the inner city and get those kids to the top of the list. Somehow I doubt that.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

pirate said:
I'm surprised they are allowed to restrict Navy pilots by height and don't have to instead build special planes with enlarged canopies (at $1b per canopy) to account for the Navy basketball team...wait, that would mean tall people actually are more likely to make the basketball team...which can't be true.
Click to expand...
Don't joke. The JSF cockpit was designed to accommodate body sizes from the the 10th percentile female up to the 90th percentile male (by height). My last job on the program was as a member of the Weight Savings Board. At that time, the airplane was so overweight that the government was willing to let Lockheed spend $200,000 of engineering effort to save 1 lb. of weight from the design. Many people submitted "restrict pilot size" as a weight savings suggestion, but that was one sacred cow that we were not allowed to touch.

My favorite weight savings suggestion (by far): "Give the pilots enemas before each flight."
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

LynahFan said:
Don't joke. The JSF cockpit was designed to accommodate body sizes from the the 10th percentile female up to the 90th percentile male (by height). My last job on the program was as a member of the Weight Savings Board. At that time, the airplane was so overweight that the government was willing to let Lockheed spend $200,000 of engineering effort to save 1 lb. of weight from the design. Many people submitted "restrict pilot size" as a weight savings suggestion, but that was one sacred cow that we were not allowed to touch.
Click to expand...

We still have manned fighters?
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Kepler said:
I'm all for it, too, but it'll never happen. Too many piggies are suckling at that teet -- it'd be about as easy to abolish the TSA or the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...
Throw in the War on Poverty and right with you!
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Kepler said:
I'm almost not kidding. Haven't they gotten so freaking fast and complicated that pilots are just dead weight?
Click to expand...
Yes, mostly. Pilots are extremely expensive - they take up a lot of space and they get really whiny if they are too hot or too cold or don't have enough oxygen or can't see out the window at all angles at all times or if the plane turns too sharply... Catering to their needs adds literally tons of weight to a fighter aircraft.

But we can't kid ourselves - fielding and supporting a fleet of unmanned fighters or strike aircraft is going to be hideously expensive, too. The communications infrastructure needed for command and control is nowhere near ready to be able to support the types of sortie rates that can be flown by manned combat aircraft today. And if you make one little minor mistake, like say, testing out the "self-destruct" system in a ground control trailer at Vandenberg AFB without realizing that the signal would be picked up by an aircraft over China Lake being flown from another trailer, this happens. (BTW, the commentator is incorrect - the self destruct feature intentionally puts the aircraft into such a fast spin that the fuel in the wings builds up enough pressure at the wing tips to break them, so that the fuel escapes while the aircraft is falling to the earth, so that it won't cause a huge fire wherever it lands).

Also, having a pilot up there puts decision making ability that much closer to the front lines (though they often pursue combat beyond visual range these days anyway), as well as allowing snap decisions to be made while maintaining radio silence. In major threat environments, unmanned aircraft will have to be pre-programmed with just a few options that it can choose between to avoid risk of the enemy detecting its communications emissions, and of course the decision making algorithm will need to be cautious and default to "safe" choices if it's not absolutely certain. This makes unmanned aircraft less effective overall, because they will miss opportunities to strike legitimate "pop-up" targets that a human pilot could have easily hit.

Sorry for the diversion, folks...
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

skynet-terminator.png
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Handyman said:
Actually you are the one being obtuse...Scooby is saying he agrees with you but the law doesnt. Scooby doesnt agree with it, in fact he argued AGAINST IT but no matter what you or he say it doesnt change what NCLB is and stands for.

Maybe if you took off your blinders and actually put some thought into what you are reading (if I can you surely can) you might realize what Scooby is saying. As it is, you are just as obtuse as the people you go "whoosh" too.

edit to add so that you cant play dumb here is what Scooby said:
Click to expand...
You need to read back further in the thread. Scooby disagreed with me for a good while before deciding he then was going to agree with me in a backhanded sort of manner.

You have a very odd way of viewing agreement. Here's a sample of Scooby quotes, which you would have seen if you had read a bit more. Taking someone to task without knowing what you are talking about makes you look stupid, which I've noticed you do on occasion.

"Wrong. The students are exactly the same. That's what the law states. If Arizona is 45th it is because of their teachers and the people running their schools. FAILURE evidently is acceptable down there. "

"You're being oblivious to what is going on around you. The Federal Law says that all students are the same. That's what it says, and that's the law of the land. I'm not making it up."

"Sounds like an excuse, Bob. We all live under the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND federal law. That means ALL CHILDREN regardless of race, color, creed, or immigration status. Our government has said with this law that the students are not what constitutes success. Yet, you make that very argument.

So, with an EQUAL playing field Minnesota has come in second in science and math and Arizona 45th. Back when they passed this law I tried to make the very argument that you are making. But, it was like yelling at the wind. I'm not yelling at the wind anymore, but you can go right ahead. "

Or maybe you just don't even understand the point I was making. At least Scooby got it, he just then purposely tried to avoid and twist it. But it was clear he got a sense of what I was saying.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Handyman said:
No wonder the students in Arizona are so friggin stupid if the adults can't even understand basic sarcasm. My lord Bob how dense are you? ;)
Click to expand...
I understand both sarcasm, and arguments that are wrong and make no sense. Or are you just saying since it's Scooby, I should never assume he's serious and is trying to make sense? I can understand that one.

Now, this post from you, you throw several insults at me and then put a little winky, as though your insults are ok or funny or whatever you imagine. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top