pawnman

Wouldn't that imply a similar lack of ethical growth across the board? Instead, people at the academies and bible colleges show almost no growth (and apparently, regression), while kids attending private, liberal arts schools do the best, followed by kids attending what we'd consider "normal" colleges.

Interesting that the Academies and bible colleges have a similar lack of growth in personal ethics. One theory is that because both cultures are used to rigid guidelines, they are not encouraged to think about things outside those guidelines. When a borderline situation pops up, they are unprepared to handle it because they have only followed the guidelines up to that point.

It is. We got that in-brief last time we went to Red Flag.

That's what I want on the roof of my house...coyotes and rotting cow bits.

The price difference is accounted for by risk aversion...much less chance of encountering a lady-boy in Brazil than in Thailand.

To think this all could have been avoided if the guy had just paid her the $50.

The types that join CGOC don't have full time jobs. That's why you are doing your own travel vouchers and why the squadron is buying all your uniforms for deployment instead of letting LRS handle it.

He's the head of my complaints department. Returned purchases are down 69%.

#1 becomes even more effective when you can convince 20-30 other CGOs in the squadron to do the same. Or just set an autoreply with "Thanks", from 70 of your closest friends, every time you get that CGOC email. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that guys attending AFIT are probably too busy to attending CGOC meetings.

James May did it, and he's not even an American.

Well, it'll get those 365's filled. My favorite from that brief was when she said people don't want to be execs for generals because they are afraid it will "hurt their career" to be "out of their career field". I think we all understand that working directly for a guy with stars is a GREAT career move, it's just a miserable fucking job.

Maybe that was the good old days, but now your more likely to get a cluster of kids around the target of the bullying adding their own comments to the fray. If an adult were exposed to this kind of abuse on a daily basis, they could file a lawsuit or get a restraining order. The kids, however, are thrown back into the same classrooms, hallways, and buses as their tormentors day after day. Ideally, this anti-bullying legislation would provide for punishing the bullies, separating them from the target of their bullying, and eventually punishing their parents (nothing generates parental involvement like inconveniencing them). We punish parents when their kids are truant, how about when their kids are assholes?

Maybe allowing teachers to stop students who are harassing gay students? The anti-bullying legislation is available online for any number of states. These people just want their kids to have the ability to call gay kids "faggot" and tell them they are going to hell...you know, standard stuff that's really good for building a healthy self-image.

It's interesting to me how the same people who howl in protest when Muslims assert their rights, claiming that they are attempting to force "Sharia law" on us, are perfectly comfortable doing the same thing as long as it's their religion getting preferential treatment.

https://autos.aol.com/article/why-a-convicted-drunk-driver-is-suing-his-victims/?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_multiline Guy pleads guilty to DUI after killing several people in a car accident. Now, after spending some time in prison, he's had a change of heart...and he's suing the victims' families, alleging that the victim cause the accident. You would almost have to admire the stones that takes, if it weren't such a dick move.

So...how is this NOT racist?

We had guys getting tasked by home station while TDY to SOS...I can't imagine it will be any better when their leadership can actually harass them in person.

IN place TDY will never happen. You'll just get the old guys saying "I didn't get extra time to do it in correspondence, you aren't getting extra time either".

You don't think there will be a whole crop of UAV pilots currently in the Air Force willing to take a job with more stable hours and less queep (potentially more pay, depending on what the market conditions look like) who will be happy to fly the UAV airliners without joining the union? I do. You're saying no current pilot wants to fly these things, or allow them to fly. You are overlooking the fact that the airlines may or may not need them to. There are other sources of labor. I haven't seen the response, so I'll ask...surely these airline unions aren't global? Because I can certainly admit that unmanned airlines may initially have trouble gaining traction against American unions, but I'm curious how pilots in, say, China, or Saudi, or Russia would fight such a move. It's entirely possible the first unmanned airliner won't be fielded by an American company.

Probably go on strike...but if they're all being replaced by robots, it really doesn't matter, now does it? What did the unions do when they started replacing jobs with robots? You don't think young dudes would be happy to let some routes be taken over by automated aircraft under the guise of keeping the airline afloat and saving some jobs, rather than cutting all of them? You don't think that will eventually lead to automated aircraft for some routes, and eventually, all routes? Hell, they used to have lots of unions, yet union membership is declining with each passing year. I wouldn't bet that the unions will be able to trump economics forever in this realm either. It may not even be an American airline that rolls out the first automated airliner...but it won't take long for American airlines to jump on the bandwagon once the technology is proven.

Let's face it, jobs are replaced by technology all the time. Even union jobs...just ask a GM employee what percentage of the welding is done by robots now versus 30 years ago. Airline technology is not immune from this shift. Even the idea that you'll need huge amounts of bandwidth is under the assumption that these things will be controlled by guys on the ground. It's feasible that in the near future, the computers can respond to voice commands from ATC (just like the Kinect lets me open Netflix and pick a movie without touching my Xbox controller). We probably have all the technology we need to build a fully automated airliner right now...the next step will be integrating it all in a single aircraft.

Just like that whaling union kept us from using electricity, or the carriage driver union kept cars off the road.

Clearly the black girl was acting in self-defense...can't wait for the congressional hearings.

That's why we're still flying around in DC-10s, right?

Because no one has ever gotten on board an airline with a human who wigged out. Like the JetBlue guy, or the guys who overflew Minneapolis. You are really underestimating the amount of faith that the younger generations have in technology. You are also talking like it would take a whole redesign of an aircraft to enable this sort of thing. I think that it's going to take one, maybe two black boxes tied to the current autopilot systems.