albertschu

+1 I just finished Bottom Billion, which I discovered off this USMC list: https://www.mccs-sc.com/lifelong/docs/readinglist.pdf

Did the Wright-Patt inspectors find this? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Strawberry_Bitch_nose_art.jpg It offends me every time I'm in Dayton.

Still not sure how your system differentiates turds from non-turds. Don't turds also want free heathcare? Valid. Although the current system does provide this sort of protection for folks that have already earned their pension. And if you had to choose between capts standing up for what is right and GOs standing up for what is right, I'd pick GOs. I don't see how it logically follows that removing the pension system would result in more bonuses, nor do I see the benefit to the tax payer of paying more bonuses. I disagree. I think it is more flexible to underpay everyone upfront. Once people have been paid huge salaries and big bonuses, they have always been paid huge salaries and big bonuses. I'm too lazy to explain sunk cost more and I'm too lazy to post the link to the wikipedia article, you can look it up. I don't see how forcing military members to be financially savvy is good for the members, the military, or for the taxpayers. From a national security POV, do we want the military to be full of prudent investors concerned with long term gains or to we want people that will take a hill when their country needs them to and trust that their country will take care of them? OK, but from the taxpayers' POV, the pension system is better, since it makes people feel like they are adequately compensated when perhaps they are not.

If the turds aren't hanging around for retirement, what will keep the non-turds? Don't some career fields already get bonuses? Bonus and pensions are not mutually exclusive. So paying everyone twice what they get now is sustainable, but giving pensions to the top 41% isn't? Please show your work. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That military service is inherently different from a civilian job and therefore should have a compensation package that is structured differently or that we should change both the compensation package and the nature of the job to match the civilian sector.

Sounds about right. The old guildon should be furled and I believe cased. Also, there is an office somewhere that collects artifacts, possibly NMUSAF.

Or just don't accept your first offer. Be persistent and marry a female NFO.

Simple answer: Get the folks that make TurboTax, TaxCut, etc. to make the replacement. These guys can make software that makes doing taxes relatively easy (I've never heard anyone under the age of 80 say they'd prefer to do taxes on paper), they can keep up with the constantly changing tax code, they can make the software so cheaply that they can give away for free, and they can make it interface with the federal system that puts $'s into my bank account. Heck, we could even get 2 or 3 of them to do it, and give them a cut off the backend. You choose which of the systems you want to use, that developer gets paid a percentage of your voucher (not out of your payment though). The more people use it the more they get paid.

Wait, why does a meteorologist get the honor of wearing a flight suit anyway, did she earn it? Oh yeah, it is a piece of safety equipment.

He ended his career as special assistant to the commander. Is there a story?

So you'd have to be able to find a gig that would pay $30,000.69 to make it worthwhile?

False. The government is fronting it.

Sorry I'm not being clear. It's the "all" I'm having trouble with. Not all airmen/Airmen in AFSPACE got free uniforms. So the expense is being transferred to SOME airmen, the others were already paying for their own uniforms already. Flight suits for aircrew are PPE, therefore a necessary expense. Flight suits for cube-dwellers is an unnecessary expense. Cutting unnecessary expenses IS a bragging point. Why can't it be both?

That is what I would have thought also. Not:

The first part of this post is spot on. However, you can't decouple reasons #1 and #3. If it were unnecessary but free OR necessary and expensive, it might be OK. But because it is unnecessary and expensive it is not OK. Examples: A) SPWINGS: Unnecessary / Free (to taxpayers) = OK B) Fire protection for Aircrew: Necessary / Expensive = OK C) Fire protection for cube dwellers: Unnecessary / Expensive = Not-OK

Wait, what is retarded about saving $700,000 per year of tax payer dollars? And who is absorbing the savings?

无人机空中加油自主会合控制器设计

Didn't say we want it, just that it is inevitable. Is Mrs. Zip also preparing for a career as a flight attendant?

You clearly haven't been paying attention. We ARE NOT saying that you will be out of a job. We're saying that you will be wearing an apron and handing out nuts. Oh and can I have a refill on my Diet Coke?

No, it is about as inevitable as when people in the 40s said super sonic flight was impossible.

Doesn't it? This is NOT footage of a flight test of an experimental fully autonomous aircraft. It is a standard configuration Airbus A320-111. The aircraft not only had a human crew, but also 130 human pax. Among other causes, a critical factor was that the captain thought the aircraft was at 30 meters AGL, when in fact it was at 30 ft AGL. As a side note, the captain would have stalled the aircraft earlier had the automated systems not prevented him from doing so.

We not only will pay the cost, we are paying the cost. Let's look at some of the technologies we'll need: some sort of system to avoid traffic collisions, some sort of system to prevent ground collisions, a global constellation of navigation satellites to augment onboard navigation systems, a system to digitize ATC-type information. So far that's TCAS, GPWS, GPS, and ADS. Were they cheap to develop? No. Did we develop them anyway? Yes. What else we'll we need? A way to meet the FAA's "see (sense) and avoid" requirement--in work. A system to autonomously detect a suitable emergency landing area--in work. What other technologies would be needed? They are either in work or they will be soon. Incrementally. We are and will continue to add all the technologies necessary to manned aircraft until it becomes a UAV with two dudes, then one dude up front. At which point the share holders will start wondering why their payroll expense is so high. Why do they keep getting on piloted aircraft? [Edited for grammers]